The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of the Liberal Arts

IROQUOIS POPULATION HISTORY AND SETTLEMENT

ECOLOGY, AD 1500-1700

A Dissertation in

Anthropology

by

Eric E. Jones

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2008

The dissertation of Eric E. Jones was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Nina G. Jablonski Professor of Biological Anthropology Department Head

Dean R. Snow Professor of Archaeological Anthropology Dissertation Adviser Chair of Committee

George R. Milner Professor of Archaeological Anthropology

Kenneth G. Hirth Professor of Archaeological Anthropology

James W. Wood Professor of Biological Anthropology and Demography

Timothy M. Murtha Assistant Professor of Landscape Architecture

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

ii ABSTRACT

Anthropological research into the population and settlement of Northern

Iroquoian Native American societies has the potential to further our knowledge of

cultural development and population change in pre-contact North America, the impacts of

European contact on Native American societies, and the development and organization of

middle range and swidden agricultural societies.

This dissertation is composed of two research components. The first is an

examination of Haudenosaunee population trends from AD 1500 to AD 1700. In this

research, I map the boundaries of all known Haudenosaunee villages occupied during this

period. The combination of settlement size and ratios of site area-per-person generate population estimates for each village. With existing chronological data, I combine these estimates to create population curves for the Haudenosaunee nations. The analysis of associated archaeological and ethnohistoric data provides explanations for the observed trends.

The second is an analysis of the natural and sociopolitical factors that influenced

Haudenosaunee settlement locations and abandonment. In this research, I analyze the spatial correlation of Haudenosaunee village locations with various natural and sociopolitical landscape features in a geographic information system. When compared to a control group, the deviations of the village locations from the control locations reveal features that attracted settlements. Finally, I employ event history analysis to examine the factors that most strongly influenced the decision to abandon Haudenosaunee villages.

iii The results of the population research reveal significant diversity in trends across the five nations. They also support the proposition that European-introduced diseases did not affect Native American populations in the Northeast and Great Lakes until the mid- seventeenth century and the idea that diseases spread irregularly through regions populated by geographically and socially buffered middle-range societies. There also appear to have been frequent migration events in this region that help to explain highly variable pre-contact population changes, shifts in settlement distribution, and sociopolitical development in the region. The identification of these events may help the development of population curves in other regions. This research also highlights effective methods for using archaeological settlement remains to study population sizes and trends in North America and elsewhere.

The settlement ecology research takes a new approach to studying the factors behind Haudenosaunee settlement locations. In the past, research has focused on finding primary factors. This dissertation argues, following recent settlement ecology theory, that settlement distribution and location should be viewed as the result of a complex system of relationships between settlement, subsistence, and sociopolitical organization. The results show that the interaction of agricultural needs, ease of transportation, and sociopolitical factors like political alliances, communication, and warfare significantly influenced

Haudenosaunee settlement location choices. Further, population size and agricultural resources were factors in the abandonment rate of villages.

These results have interesting implications for our understanding of

Haudenosaunee population and culture, the development of Native American societies in

iv the eastern Great Lakes and Northeast, and the swidden agricultural adaptation in temperate climates.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures……...……………………………………………………………………viii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...x Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………….xii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..1 Organization of the Dissertation…………………………………………………..6

Chapter 2: HAUDENOSAUNEE POPULATION AND SETTLEMENT………………..9 Relationship Between Haudenosaunee Settlement and Population……………...14 Population Research…………...………………………………………………...18 Northern Iroquoian Population Research………………………………………..22 Data Available for Demographic Research……………………………………...25 Methodological Considerations………………….………………………………30

Chapter 3: POPULATION TRENDS OF THE HAUDENOSAUNEE, AD 1500-1700...39 Methods…………………………………………………………………………..39 Results……………………………………………………………………………42 Explanation of Individual Population Trends……………..……………………..72 Discussion………………………………………………………………………..87 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..92

Chapter 4: SETTLEMENT ECOLOGY AND THE HAUDENOSAUNEE ………..…..94 Haudenosaunee Settlement Ecology………………………………………….….97 Data Available for Settlement Ecology Research………………………………106 Previous Settlement Ecology Research………………………………………...107 Methodological Considerations…………………………………….………..…110

Chapter 5: FACTORS INFLUENCING HAUDENOSAUNEE SETTLEMENT LOCATIONS…………………………………………………………………..……….119 Methods…………………………………………………………………………119 Results…………………………………………………………………………..140 Discussion………………………………………………………………………159 Conclusion……….……………………………………………………………..169

Chapter 6: EVENT HISTORY ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT ABANDONMENT..172 Event History Analysis in Anthropology……………………………………….173 Covariates………………………………………………………………………175 Iroquoian Settlement Abandonment and Abandonment Rates…………………177 Methods…………………………………………………………………………180 Results…………………………………………………………………………..182 Discussion………………………………………………………………………187 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………192

vi Chapter 7: CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………195 Future Directions……………………………………………………………….200

References………………………………………………………………………………203

Appendix A: Description of Haudenosaunee Sites……………………………………..223 Mohawk Sites…………………………………………………………………...223 Oneida Sites…………………………………………………………………….264 Onondaga Sites…………………………………………………………………295 Cayuga Sites……………………………………………………………………319 Seneca Sites…………………………………………………………………….332

Appendix B: Ecological Factor Data for Villages and Random Points………………...379

Appendix C: Viewshed Results………………………………………………………...419

Appendix D: Discriminant Function Analysis Results…………………………………438

Appendix E: Cox Proportional Hazards Analysis Results……………………………...443

vii LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 The 125 Haudenosaunee sites and their relative occupation times……………....11

2.2 Extent of Haudenosaunee occupation across modern New York State from AD 1500 to 1700…………………………………………………………………...... 12

3.1 The changes in population for all of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca nations. …………………...……………………………………………………...43

3.2 Changes in Mohawk site area over time…………………………………………44

3.3 Changes in Mohawk population over time………………………………………44

3.4 Changes in Oneida site area over time…………………………………………...47

3.5 Changes in Oneida population over time………………………………………...47

3.6 Changes in Onondaga site area over time………………………………………..53

3.7 Changes in Onondaga population over time……………………………………..54

3.8 Changes in Seneca site area over time…………………………………………...61

3.9 Changes in Seneca population over time………………………………………...61

3.10 Changes in Western Seneca site area over time………………………………….69

3.11 Changes in Eastern Seneca site area over time…………………………………..69

3.12 Changes in Western Seneca population over time……………………………….71

3.13 Changes in Eastern Seneca population over time………………………………..71

4.1 Map of the topographic zones referred to in this chapter and the distribution of Haudenosaunee village sites occupied between AD 1500 and 1700……………..98

5.1 The spatial distribution of Mohawk settlements………………………………..122

5.2 Spatial distribution of Haudenosaunee settlements occupied between AD 1500 and 1700……………………………………………………………………………..124

5.3 Portions of the viewsheds of the Onondaga Temperance House and Atwell village sites……………………………………………………………………………..127

viii

5.4 The Seneca Kanedesaga village site and a portion of its viewshed…………….128

5.5 The Seneca Kanedesaga village site and a portion of its viewshed…………….129

5.6 Slope classes in a portion of the Oneida region………………………………...131

5.7 Aspect in a portion of the Western Seneca region……………………………...132

5.8 Example of spatial correlation of settlement locations with soil features: soil texture and hardwood growth…………………………………………....……..133

5.9 Example of spatial correlation of settlement locations with soil features: frost action and soil drainage………………………………………………………...134

5.10 Canoe navigable waterways located closest to the Haudenosaunee village locations………………………………………………………………………...136

5.11 Straight-line distance between the Seneca Menzis village and the nearest canoe navigable waterway…………………………………………………………….137

5.12 Straight-line distance between the Seneca Menzis village and the nearest overland trail.……………………………………………………………………………..138

6.1 The intersection of catchments of the Cayuga Indian Fort Road, Parker Farm, and Carman sites and two soil properties, soil drainage and hardwood growth….…181

ix LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Summary of site size and population data for Mohawk sites……………………46

3.2 The criteria used to determine site boundaries at the Oneida sites………………50

3.3 Information used to assign area per person ratios at Oneida sites……………….51

3.4 Summary of site size and population data for Oneida sites……………………...52

3.5 The criteria used to determine site boundaries at the Onondaga sites…………...55

3.6 Information used to assign area per person ratios at Onondaga sites……………57

3.7 Summary of site size and population data for Onondaga sites…………………..58

3.8 Summary of site size and population data for Cayuga sites……………………..60

3.9 The criteria used to determine site boundaries at the Seneca sites………………63

3.10 Information used to assign area per person ratios at Seneca sites……………….66

3.11 Results of site area calculations and population estimates for the Seneca sites…68

3.12 Population estimates for the individual nations and total Haudenosaunee Confederacy……………………………………………………………………...86

4.1 Recorded corn yields for historic Haudenosaunee farmers……………………...99

5.1 Results of the discriminant function analysis run for all villages and random points……………………………………………………………………………141

5.2 Summary of the results of the discriminant function analysis run for each individual nation and their respective random points…………………………..141

5.3 Average viewshed size for Haudenosaunee villages and random points generated within each nation’s region……………………………………………………..142

5.4 Summary of the line-of-site statistics for the Haudenosaunee village sites…….143

5.5 Summary of field-of-view statistics for Haudenosaunee sites………………….145

5.6 Summary of the physiographic setting of villages and archaeologically identified palisades …………………………..…………………………………………....146

x

5.7 Results of spatial analyses of slope and aspect..……………………………….148

5.8 Results of the spatial analysis of settlement and random point locations with soil textures.…………………………………………………………………………149

5.9 Percentage of sites located in well-drained soil, and the distance between sites and well-drained soil ………...……………………………………………………...150

5.10 Summary statistics of soil drainage types within two kilometers of Haudenosaunee villages………………………………………………………...151

5.11 Percentage of village sites located in areas of moderate frost action and the distance to nearest frost action.…………………………………………………154

5.12 Summary of village sites and the amount of moderate frost action land within two kilometers of their boundaries………………………………………………….156

5.13 Percentages of village sites located in areas of good hardwood growth, and the average distance between sites and good hardwood growth …………………..158

5.14 Summary statistics of village and random point distances from navigable waterways and overland trails…………………………………………………..159

6.1 Results of the hazards analysis conducted with all of the environmental covariates, the sociopolitical covariates minus elevation, and the natural log of population…………….………………………………………………………...183

6.2 Results of the hazards analysis conducted with all of the environmental covariates, all of the sociopolitical covariates, and the natural log of population.…………….………………………………………………………..184

xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by the Research in Graduate Studies Office of The

Pennsylvania State University, Hill Awards from the Department of Anthropology at The

Pennsylvania State University, and The Robert F. Funk Memorial Foundation.

I would like to begin by thanking Dr. Dean R. Snow. I could not have asked for a better mentor. He truly has set an example of what it means to be an anthropologist, an academic, and a professional. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr.

George Milner, Dr. Kenneth Hirth, Dr. James Wood, and Dr. Timothy Murtha. Each was vital in their own way to helping me achieve my goals. Any acknowledgment section of any doctoral dissertation completed at Penn State would be remiss in not thanking the departmental staff. Without them, we would all be lost.

There are a number of people who greatly assisted in the execution of my dissertation research and my development as a professional archaeologist. Dr. G. Tom

Jones and Dr. Charlotte Beck introduced me to archaeology, and I cannot thank them enough for that or for being great teachers and friends. I would like to thank Dr. Jordan

Kerber for his support, critiques, and for being a role model for how collaborations with

Haudenosaunee people should be done. My fieldwork, and this dissertation, would not have been possible without the assistance and knowledge of A. Gregory Sohrweide,

Monte Bennett, Dr. Martha Sempowski, the staff at the Rochester Museum and Science

Center, Gordon and Barbara DeAngelo, Robert DeOrio, Dr. James Bradley, Dr. Kathleen

Allen, Dr. Anthony Wonderley, Andrew Stout, The Archaeological Conservancy, Gerald

Hayes, Dr. Douglas Mackey, the staff at the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic

xii Preservation, Robert Dean, and Gregory Hunt. I must also thank all of the property

owners who so graciously allowed me to trample their lawns, gardens, and fields in the

pursuit of scientific inquiry.

I would also like to thank the Haudenosaunee people. Specifically, Curtis Lazore,

Peter Jemison, and Anthony Gonyea were always willing to provide opinions on my

work and answer my questions about Haudenosaunee culture. Although I have had only

brief discussions with them, and they may not have realized it at the time, these

interactions have been some of the most enlightening experiences of my brief career. I

have always been fascinated by cultures outside of my own, and Haudenosaunee culture has been particular in this regard. I hope this research helps the Haudenosaunee people in some way by seeing the outsider’s perspective of their culture and population. I realized through the course of this work the necessity and benefits of archaeological research designed and executed with Native peoples, not simply with their consent. I will not fail to distinguish between the two in the future. I look forward to gaining a greater understanding of Haudenosaunee culture and familiarity with the people through future collaboration.

I could never have completed this research or graduate school without the support

of my family and friends. Mom and Dad, I can never thank you enough for supporting

my life and career choices no matter the difficulties they were sure to bring. Although, all

that rock-picking in my youth is surely somewhat to blame for my choosing a profession

based on digging in the dirt. Brian and Lynn, you have been so encouraging of and

interested in what I do… no matter how boring it is to most people. Thank you to all the

xiii aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents in both the Jones and Marshall families who have been nothing short of supportive and loving.

I am convinced that graduate school would be impossible without the friends you make who celebrate and commiserate with you. Thank you Sam, Erick, Jason, Kirk, and

Geoff for making the experience one I will never forget. To my oldest friends, Brandon,

Jamie, Chris, and Pete, thanks for putting up with my boring graduate school stories.

Finally, to my best friend, Sharon, I cannot express with words how much you are to credit for any of my recent success. With you by my side, I truly believe that I can achieve anything. Thank you.

xiv Chapter 1: Introduction

This dissertation is an examination of the population trends and settlement

ecology of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) for the time period of AD 1500-1700. My

primary goals are to create a detailed description of Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and

Seneca Haudenosaunee populations and gain an understanding of the environmental and

sociopolitical factors that shaped settlement patterns and the process of abandonment. I

achieve these goals through two research components. The first is an examination of

archaeological settlement size, which, along with archaeological and ethnohistoric data,

provides a basis for estimating population sizes at specific settlements. The second is a

combination of spatial analysis, multivariate regression analysis, and event history analysis that investigates the relationship between settlement locations and natural and

sociopolitical features and characteristics of the surrounding landscape and environment.

This attempts to explain what factors influenced the decisions of Haudenosaunee

communities about where to place settlements.

Research into the population sizes and trends of past societies is notoriously

difficult. In North America, a multitude of data types and methods have been used to

investigate the pre-contact populations on continental and regional scales. However, most

demographers and archaeologists recognize habitation remains as the best source of non-

written data for estimating population sizes (Hassan 1978; Schacht 1981). Several

population studies conducted in the Eastern Woodlands of North America using

settlement remains have produced detailed population estimates and trends (Milner 1986;

Snow 1995a; Snow and Starna 1989; Warrick 2003; Warrick 2008).

1 Most population research in North America has focused on the effects of

European contact and how introduced diseases spread and impacted Native American

populations. Many studies have identified that European diseases acted as epidemics effecting groups at different times and with different degrees of severity (Milner 1980;

Snow and Lanphear 1988; Snow and Starna 1989; Thornton et al. 1992). However, there are still a small number of researchers who support the idea that diseases swept across the continent as pandemics, killing enormous amounts of Native Americas decades before

Europeans ever stepped foot in their areas of the continent (Dobyns 1966, 1983; Crosby

1986; Ramenofsky 1987; Upham 1986, 1992). To resolve this debate, we need more case studies of regional and individual populations from both coastal and interior regions.

These results can display the timing and severity of population losses across a large area of the continent during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This research provides exactly this type of regional population data.

The Haudenosaunee population has long been speculated, but only the Mohawk nation has been the object of intensive demographic archaeological research (Snow

1995a; Snow and Starna 1989). This research has the potential to provide the first testable population estimates for the Haudenosaunee at the confederacy and individual nation scales. This information will help us to understand Haudenosaunee population sizes and trends prior to contact and the overall effects of contact. It will also be able to place these trends in context with other known populations in the Eastern Woodlands from the same time period and further complete the picture of how European diseases spread and impacted Native American populations.

2 With most research focusing on the changes at contact, the diversity and

complexity of Native American populations is sometimes overlooked. These populations

were as dynamic as any other human population, so to focus only on the changes at

contact is missing a large portion of the demographic picture. We cannot fully understand

pre-contact cultural development or the impacts of European contact on populations

unless without population data from this period. Topics such as migration, warfare, trade

and exchange, and the development of complex political units all have demographic

components. Increasing our understanding of pre-contact population sizes, movements,

and trends will help research in these areas. Although extending only one hundred years

before contact, the results of this research provide a basis for discussing pre-contact

Haudenosaunee population sizes and trends. Comparisons to previous studies in other

regions can help us to understand commonalities and variability between populations and

even identify demographic processes such as migrations.

To study the above topics, I mapped the boundary of archaeologically identified

Haudenosaunee settlement sites and used the resulting information to calculate settlement

areas. Snow and Starna (1989:143) determined that village populations could be derived

from measured site areas with 90% accuracy. Afterward, I employed Snow’s (1995a)

ratios of site-area-per-person developed from Mohawk archaeological remains and

ethnohistoric information and estimated population sizes for the sites. I used these

numbers in conjunction with established site occupation dates to create population curves

for the Onondaga, Oneida, and Seneca during the aforementioned time period. I then examined the results along with the existing Mohawk and Cayuga data to estimate population sizes and examine population trends. By expanding research conducted

3 among the Northern Iroquoian groups of the Northeast and eastern Great Lakes, this

research helps to explain previously unknown details like pre-contact depopulation

events, population growth rates, and migration episodes. In these regions, we now know

only about the timing of depopulation resulting from European-diseases for the

Wendat/Tionontati (Warrick 2008) and the Mohawk (Snow and Starna 1989).

Information for more populations can indicate the rate and direction of disease spread. It

may even be possible to determine who were the primary agents of disease spread. All of

these results are beneficial to understanding the impact of European diseases not just in

the Northeast and eastern Great Lakes but also across North America.

Settlement pattern archaeology is almost as old as the field itself and examines the

spatial patterning past cultures. Settlement ecology research is a more recent venture that

seeks to explain why settlement patterns exist as they do. This involves an investigation

of the natural and cultural factors that influence the settlement locations, sizes, and

distribution for a given culture. Studies of the relationship between settlement and

subsistence/ecology for hunters and gatherers have been conducted for decades, and a

comprehensive theory of hunting and gathering settlement ecology exists (e.g. Binford

1968, 1980; Kelley 1995). Studies of this relationship for non-industrial intensive

agriculturalists began in earnest during the 1990’s (see Netting 1993 and Stone 1996).

Less research has focused on the settlement ecology of swidden agriculturalists,

particularly those that lived in temperate climates. Research focusing on swidden

agriculturalists has the potential to help us better understand what environmental features were important to these cultures. More generally, it can provide us with a picture of the variation in human settlement systems and ecological relationships that are important to

4 people practicing various subsistence strategies. The Haudenosaunee and other temperate

swidden agricultural groups have a significant amount to tell us about this subsistence

strategy and what people’s lives are like within this system of food production. On a smaller scale, this research can help us to understand Haudenosaunee culture and their relationship to their natural and cultural surroundings. A small number of previous

studies on this topic have proposed that Haudenosaunee communities were sacrificing

agricultural potential for defensive reasons during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

(Bond 1985; Allen 1996). These propositions will be tested in this research while

examining a large suite of factors and their influence on Haudenosaunee settlement

locations.

I use 125 archaeologically identified Haudenosaunee village sites in this settlement ecology research. These sites represent the villages that communities from the five Haudenosaunee nations occupied at different times over the study period. I conducted a geographic positioning system (GPS) mapping project and archival research to verify site locations and determine the size of 45 of the 125 sites. The site locations are then analyzed in relation to the location of various natural and sociopolitical landscape features. These results are compared to a set of randomly generated points to determine the most influential factors affecting the settlement patterns. Further, the factors that influenced the length of occupation are investigated using hazards analysis. These statistical models allow for the direct testing of various natural and sociopolitical factors to determine which had the most influence on the probability of abandonment at

Haudenosaunee settlements. These two studies together can help us to understand the pushes and pulls on the landscape that influenced settlement location choices.

5

Organization of the Dissertation

The organization of this dissertation reflects the combination of the two research

components into one larger study. Chapters 2 and 3 detail the population research, and

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 describe the settlement ecology research. Specifically, Chapter 2

discusses basic Haudenosaunee cultural features and pertinent theories and

methodologies needed by the reader to understand the work I undertook. It also includes

an explanation of why I used settlement data to study population sizes and trends. This is

followed by a description of previous work on the subject and the current knowledge of

Haudenosaunee settlement and demography. I also offer an explanation with theoretical and methodological support for the scale of analysis used in this research. Finally, I describe the origins and characteristics of the data, including settlement features and site establishment and abandonment dates.

Chapter 3 presents the methods, results, and discussion of the population research.

It begins with a brief discussion of the methodological considerations concerning the site

chronology and the impact of any errors on the creation of population trends. I follow this

with the description of the mapping fieldwork and calculations of site sizes and

population sizes. Finally, I present results and follow them with a discussion of the findings.

Chapter 4 contains the background information needed to understand the

motivation for the settlement ecology study and our current knowledge on the subject.

This includes a definition and discussion of the study of settlement ecology. It also

6 describes how I employed archaeologically derived Haudenosaunee settlement remains to study this topic. I follow this description with the data available for the study and the

previous research into the topic. Finally, I discuss the methodological considerations of

using viewshed analyses, modern agricultural yields as a proxy for soil productivity, and

circular catchment areas.

Chapter 5 presents the methods, results, and discussion of the spatial analyses.

This research investigates the spatial correlation of settlement locations with particular

environmental features within a GIS. I used several spatial analysis tools within the GIS

for this research and describe them in this chapter. This chapter presents the results of the

spatial analysis for each individual nation. This explains the factors that influenced their

individual settlement patterns. A discriminant function analysis provided the most

influential factors for the entire Haudenosaunee settlement distribution and each

individual nation. Finally, I discuss the impact of these factors on each nation and the

whole group and what their identification means for understanding Haudenosaunee

settlement and culture.

Chapter 6 presents the methods, results, and discussion of the analysis of the

factors that influenced the occupation time at Haudenosaunee settlements. I completed

this portion of the research with event history analysis, specifically Cox proportional

hazards analysis. I analyze the Haudenosaunee as a whole in this portion of the research.

After explaining event history analysis, the data, and the methods, I present the results

and discuss their implications on previous hypotheses of the causes of Haudenosaunee

settlement abandonment.

7 Chapter 7 presents the conclusions of the research. It synthesizes the results into a discussion of the Haudenosaunee from AD 1500-1700, the ecology of swidden

agriculturalists, the possible utility of this research to general anthropological theory and

method, and future research that can build upon the results presented here.

The conclusion is followed by five appendices, which include the data collected

through fieldwork and archival research and the results of particular analyses. Appendix

A includes detailed descriptions of all 125 archaeological sites used in this study.

Appendix B includes the complete spatial data for every site and randomly generated

point, which were used as the control group for the spatial analyses. Appendix C provides

the full results of the viewshed analysis including visibility matrices, field-of-view

estimates, and line-of-sight measurements. Appendix D lists the results of the

discriminant function analysis for each of the individual Haudenosaunee nations.

Appendix E provides the results of each of the Cox proportional hazards models.

8 Chapter 2: Haudenosaunee Population and Settlement

This dissertation focuses on the archaeological remains of and historical data relating to historic Haudenosaunee culture. The term Haudenosaunee, which means

“people of the longhouse”, is the term the people use themselves for the league, or confederacy, originally formed by the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca nations. The original five cultures speak closely related Iroquoian languages and are often referred to simply as the Iroquois in historical texts and anthropological literature. This term is a French alteration of a Basque-Algonquian pidgin name for the Confederacy

(Snow 1994:2). The foreign derivation of the word in combination with its meaning, which is considered offensive to some, leads to the use of “Haudenosaunee” throughout the body of this work. The title of the dissertation retains the Iroquois moniker to avoid confusion and assist those who may wish to reference this research.

Specifically, the Haudenosaunee speak Northern Iroquoian languages, which were and continue to be spoken by peoples living throughout the eastern Great Lakes and

Northeast regions. These cultures included the Wendat (Huron) confederacy, the

Tionontaté (Petun), the Neutral confederacy, the Erie nations, the Wenro, St. Lawrence

Iroquoian cultures, and the Susquehannock. Today, Haudenosaunee people still reside in their historic homeland as well as on reservations and reserves in Northern New York,

Southern Ontario, Southern Quebec, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma (Snow 1994:198-218).

At the time of their first direct contact with Europeans in AD 1609 the

Haudenosaunee lived in semi-sedentary villages of a few hundred to a few thousand people (Snow 1994). This assessment of population sizes is based almost entirely on

9 research (Snow 1995a; Snow 1995c; Snow and Starna 1989; Snow and Lanphear 1988) done on the Mohawk and historical references pertaining to various nations (Andrews

1741; O’Callahan 1850-1). Communities occupied a village for between five and twenty years, generally, and then moved to a new location and built a new village (Snow 1994).

Thus, the 125 archaeology sites used in this study represent villages occupied at different times over the total study period. Each nation occupied from one to four villages at the same time with an average of around ten Haudenosaunee villages in existence during any given year between AD 1500 and AD 1700. The relative chronological occupation of sites is shown in Figure 2.1. Periodic abandonment villages and the establishment of new ones left archaeological sites throughout the region. These settlements were distributed from the Adirondack foothills and Lake Ontario southward to the Susquehanna River and lower Finger Lakes (Figure 2.2). They practiced a swidden agricultural subsistence strategy supplemented with the hunting and gathering of wild food resources. More subsistence information is described in Chapter 4.

10 Eastern Date Mohawk Oneida Onondaga Cayuga Seneca Western Seneca Buyea, Landon, Colgan, Cemetery, 1500 Otstungo Moon, Mahaney/Colgan, Indian Hill II Goff, Brunk Weir Nursery, Cayadutta, Indian Fort Road, 1525 Olcott Barnes, Garoga Parker Farm McNab

Temperance Klock Belcher Richmond Mills 1550 Vaillancourt House, Atwell Smith-Pagerie Chapin, Barker, Carmen, Locke England's Quirk, Fort Woods #1, Bach, Culbertson, Adams, 1575 Sheldon, Rice's Woods, Diable Reed Johnston Pickering Van der Werken Martin, Tram Wagner's Chase, Hollow, Briggs Genoa Fort, East Brisbane 1600 Cameron Dwyer Cameron Run, Coleman- Genoa Van Duesen Pompey Factory Dutch Hollow,

Center Hollow Fugle Blowers, Myer's Fort Cromwell, Wilson 1625 Yates, Brown, Pratt's Falls Failing Lima, Bosley Bauder, Mills Rumrill-Naylor, Shurtleff Garrett Warren, Van Evera- Cornish Thurston, McKinney, Marshall Prospect Hill, Sand Hill #1, Carley Oak Hill #1 Printup, Freeman, Janie, Powerhouse, Mitchell, Menzis Stone 1650 Horatio Nellis, Lot 18 Steele Quarry Fisk, Allen, Jackson- St. Stephen, St. Everson Rene Gandagaro, Dungey, Gandachioragou, Indian Castle Wheeler Fox Far, March La Concepcion Station Schenk Sullivan, 1675 Indian Hill Collins Ganondagan, Totiakton, White Orchard, Cherry Street, Upper Kient-he Caughnawaga, Weston St. Joseph, Beal Hogan Lipe Cranebrook, Young Farm 1700 Primes Hill Jamesville Kanedesaga Onaghee Figure 2.1: The 125 Haudenosaunee sites and their occupation times. This is based on figures from Sempowski and Saunders (2001:6) and Engelbrecht (2003:116-117).

11

Figure 2.2: Extent of Haudenosaunee occupation across modern New York State from AD 1500 to 1700. The points on the map represent the 125 archaeologically identified village sites used in this study. The sites represented were not all occupied at the same time during this period. They are the accumulation of multiple short-term occupations at various locations.

The Haudenosaunee were organized under a confederacy that politically

connected five previously independent tribal, or segmentary, societies (Morgan

1962[1851]). The date of establishment for this confederacy is unknown and the most

likely estimates range between AD 1400 and AD 1600 (Engelbrecht 2003:129-131; Snow

1994). Oral tradition places the establishment prior to the arrival of Europeans, and

evidence suggests it may have been a lengthy process with a number of different alliance

12 combinations early on (Engelbrecht 1985; Fenton 1998). Different nations may have joined over several years making a single establishment date difficult to determine (Snow

1994:60; Engelbrecht 2003:129-131).

Men held leadership positions, and councils of leaders from all five nations would meet to discuss strategies on war, trade, and diplomacy. However, these leaders had very little power to enforce their decisions. Often, nations, clans, and even individuals within the cultures acted on their own interests with few repercussions (Engelbrecht 2003).

Through control of agricultural production and the internal affairs of households and villages, women achieved a significant amount of political power in Haudenosaunee society. They collectively controlled village affairs, and as a result were responsible for electing the male leaders to office. They also had the power to remove men from their leadership positions.

The eastern Great Lakes region inhabited by the Haudenosaunee is a temperate deciduous forest, so the preservation of organic remains is not ideal. However, bone is often recovered from archaeological sites along with the less commonly found wood, basketry, and animal hides. Pottery sherds, stone tools, and stone tool debitage dominate pre-contact sites. European-made items appeared in the mid-sixteenth century (see

Appendix A for a description of artifacts found at specific sites). Settlement remains are often well preserved and include hearths, storage pits, and postmolds from dwelling structures and man-made defensive walls, or palisades. Hearths are one of the best- preserved archaeological remains at Haudenosaunee sites (Warrick 2008), and postmolds tend to be very distinctive and allow for the delineation of house structures and village extents, which were often defined by palisades. These settlement remains provide the

13 bulk of archaeological data for both the demographic and ecological studies that compose

this research. The remainder of this chapter explains the relationship between

Haudenosaunee settlement and demography, why settlement remains are effective for

estimating populations, and previous research on the subject. A similar discussion of the relationship between Haudenosaunee settlement and ecology can be found in Chapter 4.

Relationship Between Haudenosaunee Settlement and Population

By AD 1300, the distinctive Haudenosaunee culture seen at contact was in place in

the rolling glacial till plains of what is now New York. This consisted of compact villages

and the aforementioned semi-sedentary settlement pattern in which villages were

occupied for a period of five to twenty years and abandoned for any number of

hypothesized reasons, which I discuss in more detail in Chapters 4 and 7. Internally,

villages were made up of a number of bark-covered longhouses that contained families of

the same lineage and clan. Longhouses were divided into compartments that each housed

two nuclear families, one on each side of the house. These features are often identifiable

in archaeological research from the post mold remains of the dividing walls. A hearth

was placed in the center of each compartment and shared by the two families. Descent

was, and still is in most modern Haudenosaunee cultures, traced through the mother’s

line, and married couples resided matrilineally with the wife’s mother’s family in their

house. The layout of longhouses allowed for easy expansion and contraction by adding or

removing compartments. The latter was much more rare.

14 From AD 1500 to AD 1700, warfare was common but variable in intensity between

cultures living in the eastern Great Lakes and Northeast. Conflicts appear to have reached

their highest frequency between AD 1525 and AD 1650. Sites dating to this period were

more nucleated compared to those before them and were protected by natural barriers or

human-constructed defensive works (Snow 1994; Engelbrecht 2003).

Many Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, and Seneca villages were completely or partially palisaded using wooden poles buried vertically and connected by smaller, horizontally placed branches. The Cayuga pattern was likely similar, but the lack of settlement research on their village sites prevents any certainty. The palisade and natural defenses often defined the boundary of the living space within the settlement, as these features surrounded the longhouses and intervening spaces. The occupied space of a village almost always filled the entire palisaded area. Two exceptions, the Wendat

Nodwell (Wright 1974) and Uren (Wright 1986) sites, exist in which the palisades were a significant distance from the occupied area. However, there has been no evidence of this type of settlement layout at any Haudenosaunee village.

Palisades were highly variable between individual sites and were composed of single, double, and sometimes triple rows of defensive wooden walls. Palisade posts were typically set between 15 and 30 cm apart, and the diameter of post molds varies within sites (Prezzano 1992: 242, 249). Sixteenth century post molds tend to be a foot in diameter or less (Wray et al 1987; Ritchie and Funk 1973). At some sites, palisade poles reached sizes almost two feet in diameter (Peterson 1958; Funk 1993). Significant amounts of time were needed to create these palisades, and in the case of the large posts,

15 erect these poles—time that could have been used for subsistence activities. This is a sign that defensibility of these particular sites was important.

Partially palisaded villages were usually located on promontories of land where steep ravines acted as defensive slopes on one or more sides. Palisades were then usually constructed only at the locations that allowed easy access to the interior of the settlement.

Refuse dumps, agricultural fields, and cemeteries were also closely associated with, but separate from, Haudenosaunee living spaces. Usually, these features were located adjacent to the palisade walls. Each of these archaeological features can be used to estimate the maximum possible size of the living area of a village.

The cultural reorganization that occurred in the Northeast and eastern Great Lakes during the seventeenth century is of central importance to this research. During this time, native populations were severely reduced by warfare and European-introduced diseases.

In many cases, this led to entire populations abandoning traditional lands and moving west to escape the advancing front of Euro-American settlement. This often resulted in the conglomeration of several cultures into multi-ethnic communities. In some cases, these populations became refugee communities that eventually came to reside with groups that remained in traditional territories.

The Haudenosaunee managed to survive this period more successfully than most other cultures primarily because of their willingness to accept refugees and captives into their communities and territories during the seventeenth century (Snow 1994). The

Haudenosaunee have long had the phrase “extending the rafters”, which included the addition of new individuals to a longhouse (usually through marriage) and also the addition of foreign peoples into a community (Engelbrecht 2003:73). Although this

16 traditionally involved adopting only small numbers of people, this long-standing practice

easily transitioned into the acceptance of large numbers of people when the times

required it. In the seventeenth century, the survival of the Haudenosaunee was dependent

upon these refugees and captives.

Daniel Richter (1992:32-8) has argued that the “mourning war” phenomenon was

an integral part of Haudenosaunee society and played a role in these adoptions. Women

encouraged male relatives to go to war and capture enemies, who were adopted into the

place of deceased members of society. This practice offset Haudenosaunee losses from

disease and warfare by adopting outsiders at a larger scale. For instance, Wendat (Huron)

communities settled with the Seneca around AD 1650 (JR LII:52-55; Trigger 1976:790,

826; Warrick 2008:238) and the Mohawks in AD 1657 (JR XLIII:187). It is not certain

how these communities participated in Haudenosaunee culture, but it appears that in each

case that they resided in a nearby village that was spatially separate from the host village.

An AD 1656-7 Jesuit account states,

[t]he country of Sonnontouan [Seneca], which is much more fertile and more populous than the other Iroquois Provinces, contains two large villages and a number of small ones, besides the Huron Village called Saint Michel, whose inhabitants sought refuge there to escape the general destruction of their Nation. They retain their own customs and peculiar usages, and live apart from the Iroquois, satisfied to be united with them in good feeling and friendship (JR XLIII:19).

This indicates that they retained many of their Wendat cultural characteristics, at least for the first generation after moving.

This situation raises issues of ethnicity and questions about which population estimate refugee populations count toward. Should they be counted as parts of the Seneca and Mohawk populations, or should they be considered to have continued to exist as

separate Wendat populations? For this study, I take a more regional than cultural

17 approach for the late seventeenth century and include refugee villages in the population

counts for the Haudenosaunee nations with whom they resided. These communities,

while culturally distinct, were living with and likely acting politically in accordance with

Haudenosaunee policies.

It also appears that European chroniclers like Wentworth Greenhalgh (O’Callahan

1850-1) made no distinction between native and refugee communities when providing

counts of Haudenosaunee general populations or warriors. In addition, the practice of

capture and adoption of non-Haudenosaunee people into Haudenosaunee communities

extends far back in time. It is likely that several people in almost every village occupied

from AD 1500 to AD 1700 were not born Haudenosaunee, but I similarly count them as

Haudenosaunee for the purposes of this study as they were likely active participants in the culture. These individuals were rapidly assimilated into Haudenosaunee cultures and most adapted easily. The alternative to adoption was death, so there was every incentive for captives to quickly and completely conform to their new society.

Population Research

Population estimates for Native American cultures have been of interest to

Europeans since shortly after contact and to anthropologists since the beginning of the discipline in America. Modern research into this topic began in 1910 with Mooney’s

(1928) compilation of regional population sizes and progressed through several research projects (Kroeber 1939; Dobyns 1966, 1983; Ubelaker 1976, 1988; Thornton and

Thornton 1981; Thornton 1987, 1997; Ramenofsky 1987; Denevan 1992; and Snow

18 2000) without agreeing upon an estimate. In fact, the continent-wide estimates range

from fewer than 1 million (Kroeber 1939) to over 18 million (Dobyns 1983).

Many of these studies generated estimates inductively, explaining them with

various combinations of documentary sources, environmental carrying capacities,

assumed disease-related depopulation rates, and analogies that spanned varied

environments and adaptations. Many studies based their estimates from population

numbers recorded in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The issue then became

closely tied to the timing and effect of Old World diseases in the New World.

Assumptions had to be made about whether historically recorded populations numbers

were pre- or post-disease, depopulation rates if they were post-disease, and possible

biases of the recorder. Two studies of the same population yielded very different results

depending on data, the methods used, and the assumptions made by the researcher.

Specifically, estimates generated from assumed disease-related population

declines were hampered by a debate about whether diseases acted as pandemics or

epidemics. The pandemic argument asserted that any recorded disease event spread

across whole continents affecting almost every population (Dobyns 1966, 1983). Thus,

the first direct contact between Spanish explorers and Native Americans along the

southeastern Gulf Coast introduced the first diseases to the continent. These diseases then

spread unchecked across the continent infecting every Native American population and

killing approximately 90% of every affected population (Dobyns 1983). In developing

this hypothesis, Dobyns (1983:313) used Haudenosaunee data to support his ideas. He

suggested that Seneca village abandonment and move to new villages around AD 1550 was evidence of these communities trying to escape a pandemic. The lack of evidence for

19 this claim and the sixteenth century Seneca population trends are discussed in the following chapter.

Researchers on the other side of the debate argued that diseases were localized and affected the large majority of Native American populations only after sustained contact with Europeans. Snow and Lanphear (1988) explained this through the nature of crowd diseases, which were the most common killers early in the contact period. Most

European explorers were adults that had survived these diseases and developed immunity or never caught them at all. Even if there were infected individuals on trips to the New

World, the voyage was long, and acted as quarantine during which diseases would run their course in the small shipboard populations. Thus, these initial visitors to the

Americas likely did not carry these crowd diseases with them. The diseases only came when families starting arriving on the continent. Children were the most likely carriers of diseases to the New World, and families usually did not arrive in the Northeast until the

AD 1630’s (Snow and Lanphear 1989). Thus, the argument follows that most diseases

among Native Americans often did not occur until several years after their first face-to-

face contact with a European. In addition, geographic and cultural boundaries between

groups in eastern North America likely prevented contact between sick individuals and

their healthy, more interiorly located neighbors (Milner et al. 2001). This also would have

prevented widespread disease events.

Archaeology and ethnohistory are the most reliable sources of empirical data for

this research, but for most Native American cultures, there is simply not enough of these

data to create empirically based population estimates. Further, even when reliable post-

contact historic and archaeological data are available, they often cannot be connected to

20 archaeological cultures to create any continuity across the date of contact. The studies

(Milner 1998; Snow 2000; Warrick 2008) utilizing archaeological data on a regional, or smaller, scale have produced the most reliable results. However, these studies have been few in number, and thus, have not generated any agreement on pre-contact population sizes or the timing and effects of European-introduced diseases.

The key to answering our questions about pre-contact Native American population sizes and change lies in archaeological research (Ramenofsky 1987; Warrick

2008). Research into settlement characteristics (e.g. location, size, and distribution), development of middle range theory to connect settlement remains to population size

(Warrick 2008), and improved techniques for identifying historically-known cultures in archaeological contexts are all needed on regional and sub-regional scales. The results of such research can then be combined to create larger super-regional estimates.

Unfortunately, there are few cases that meet the necessary requirements for studying pre-contact populations and for studying continuity between the archaeological and documentary records. Iroquoian populations of the Northeast and eastern Great Lakes are among the best cases in North America because there exists a substantial amount of archaeological settlement data and an established connection between archaeological and ethnohistoric records. Two separate research projects established methods for studying

Iroquoian population sizes and trends and showed the utility of the results in answering long-standing questions about past Native American population sizes and change.

21

Northern Iroquoian Population Research

Archaeological research into Northern Iroquoian population trends has been less common and only recently completed (Snow 1995a, 1995c; Snow and Lanphear 1988;

Snow and Starna 1989; Warrick 1990, 2003, 2008). These studies have provided the most useful data for discussions of Iroquoian population size and population change as well as some of the most important information in discussions of pre-contact continental population sizes and the timing and effects of European diseases.

Warrick (1990; 2003; 2008) developed a population curve for the Wendat-

Tionontaté (Huron-Petun) of Southern Ontario over the period AD 500-1650 using

settlement remains to estimate population sizes. While noting that it is difficult to find a

settlement feature that substitutes for a head count in any cultural instance, Warrick

determined that hearths are the best indicator for Iroquoian populations because they tend

to preserve well and, as a result of cumulative research into the features, can be clearly

delineated into family hearths and ancillary hearths. He divided Wendat-Tionontaté sites

into time periods and used the family hearth counts from all known sites to determine

total regional populations during the different periods. The populations from unidentified

or destroyed sites were interpolated from characteristics of the sample. The population

curve was successfully generated, and relationships between site size and population size were generated. He determined that Wendat sites were occupied at a density of 500

2 people per hectare (20 m per person) except from AD 1525 to AD 1650, when settlements

22 were occupied at a density of 700 people per hectare (14 m2 per person; Warrick

2003:265).

Snow’s (1995a) and Snow and Starna’s (1989) studies of Mohawk settlement and

demography developed a ratio of 20 m2 per person for late seventeenth century Iroquoian

sites based on complete excavations of longhouses and village area at a the Mohawk

Caughnawaga site and the Wendat Nodwell site. Most population estimates using dwellings have relied on formulas relating floor area to population size, such as the one developed by Casselberry (1974) for multi-family structures. Snow and Starna’s estimations rely on specific house features that were used by families and ethnohistorically established average family sizes.

Almost total excavation of the Mohawk Caughnawaga site allowed them to establish a total count of family living compartments based on the number of hearths and the internal distribution of postmolds within the longhouses. Existing ethnohistoric data indicated that a compartment/hearth supported two families and that the average

Haudenosaunee family size was five individuals (Snow and Starna 1989). Snow and

Starna (1989) multiplied the average family size by the number of compartments/hearths and then multiplied this number by two. These calculations produced the overall population size of the village. Surveying and mapping of the site boundaries determined the area of the village, and dividing the village area by the number of people yielded the area per person. After repeating this procedure at a number of sites, a common ratio of area-per-person at Mohawk sites was identified.

Snow (1995a) later recognized a large number of sites with an alternate occupation density. From this research, a 12 m2 per person ratio was developed for mid-

23 to late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century sites. Both have since been tested

on several Mohawk sites and the Seneca Ganondagan village site (Snow and Starna 1989;

Snow 1995a; Jones 2006a). No tested Northern Iroquoian site has invalidated either ratio.

With both ratios tested, extensive surface surveying of all known Mohawk site areas

completed the work. They applied the ratios and generated population numbers and a

population curve for the Mohawk nation from the mid-fifteenth century to the late-

eighteenth century. It is important to note that Warrick’s (2003) area-per-person ratios at

Wendat sites were established in a completely independent project.

Funk and Kuhn (2003) have recently stated reservations with the methods described above. They advocate a smaller-scale approach to determine individual site configurations as opposed to continuing to apply mathematical analogies on a regional scale. There is no doubt that small-scale archaeological investigations would improve our knowledge of pre-contact Haudenosaunee population sizes and demographic trends.

However, these scales of research are complementary, not oppositional. Neitzel and

Anderson (1999) clearly exhibited that multi-scalar approaches are ideal for formulating and testing models of long-term societal change. Long-term patterns of demographic change are no different. Focusing on a single scale can produce unrepresentative results.

Relying on only large-scale analyses blurs the details and variability. Working only at a small scale fails to determine the overall pattern or the place a site holds in it. Conversely, a multi-scalar approach allows large-scale research, such as this, to formulate a model of demographic change while the small-scale research, as proposed by Funk and Kuhn, tests that model. Anthropologists are in the very early stages of studying Haudenosaunee population and demography. Thus, new models must be built before they can be tested.

24 The ideal plan is that model building described in this chapter is followed by detailed

analyses of Haudenosaunee archaeological data at several scales.

Data Available for Demographic Research

Using Warrick’s (1990; 2008) and Snow’s (1995a) methods as a model, this research expands the study of Haudenosaunee populations to the Oneida, Onondaga,

Cayuga, and Seneca cultures. First, these cultures represent a small number of the cases in which Native American populations were in early and consistent contact with

Europeans and where late precontact archaeological sites are well preserved. After first

contact in AD 1609, Haudenosaunee peoples of at least one of the five nations were in

consistent contact with European traders, explorers, and missionaries throughout the

seventeenth century. These contacts produced demographic data on average family size

and connections between archaeologically identifiable dwelling features (Snow and

Starna 1989).

Furthermore, Haudenosaunee archaeological sites dating to the sixteenth and

seventeenth centuries have well-preserved settlement remains, tend to reside in rural

areas, and have been studied for over a century. This creates a situation in which we have

a very high-percentage sample of all village sites occupied during this time period and a

low number of sites destroyed by modern construction. Finally, Haudenosaunee people

and culture survived in the region throughout the contact period, eliminating the need to

employ tenuous cross-cultural analogies and allowing for a strong connection between archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic information.

25 The Mohawk settlement and population data used in this research are adopted

from Snow’s (1995a) previous research. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s,

researchers and students from the University at Albany and the State University of New

York at Oneonta executed a regional settlement and population study of the Mohawk

called the Mohawk Valley Project (Snow 1995a, 1995b). They surveyed and excavated

numerous sites dating from the tenth to the eighteenth centuries. The result was site-

specific population estimates, a regional population estimate, and a population curve

spanning three centuries (Snow 1995a, 1995c). I employ the data generated from the

Mohawk Valley Project in this research with only minor alterations. I discuss the details

of the data used and changes to it in the following chapter.

The only other published population research on a Haudenosaunee nation is for

the Seneca (Vandrei 1987). Vandrei’s (1987) estimated a Seneca population of 1800-

4700 in AD 1600. He generated these numbers from Naroll’s (1962) and Casselberry’s

(1974) formulas for estimating population sizes from the area of roofed floor space. The

large range in the estimate makes it very difficult to use the information in any

meaningful way to explain Seneca population or culture in the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries. In addition, these results do not provide any information on Seneca population

change.

There have been no other formal attempts to estimate the population size or

changes in size of a complete Haudenosaunee nation. Wray et al (1987, 1991),

Sempowski and Saunders (2001), and Saunders (1987) estimated population sizes at individual Seneca sites based on cemetery populations. However, these estimates have

been recognized as too low (Warrick 2008) compared to estimates from settlement area.

26 Much of this is due to the fact that not all deceased individuals end up in Haudenosaunee

cemeteries, leading to under-estimations of living populations.

Daniel Weiskotten began investigating the population sizes at Oneida villages

using Snow’s methods but was never able to complete or publish his work before his

death. Many of the population estimates here are different from his, but his site measurements and scaled maps provide a substantial amount of data for the Oneida sites used in this research. Almost no research has gone into the population size or trends for either the Onondaga or Cayuga. However, the Onondaga have been the subject of a significant amount of settlement research (see Tuck 1971 and Bradley 1987), which has produced a substantial amount of data useful in studying population sizes and trends.

In summary, there exists well-preserved settlement remains, almost a century of research and resulting data on these settlement remains, and a good ethnohistoric record.

Demographic data for the Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca can be generated from settlement remains and ethnohistoric accounts where they are available. Pre-contact

Iroquoian communities left behind archaeological data that are almost ideal for population studies. The well-delineated residential and non-residential areas defined by palisades allow for an accurate empirical measurement of the living space used by communities. Where a palisade was not present, the layout was almost identical save the presence of the defensive wall. Longhouses were arranged similarly and middens were located on the perimeter of the living area. Warrick (2008) established that using longhouses, the spaces around them, and associated middens works effectively to define the boundaries of unpalisaded Iroquoian villages. This allows for the measurement of any village area even in the absence of a palisade. This measurement in conjunction with an

27 association between units of settlement area per person can then be used to estimate population numbers based on the amount of space at a given Haudenosaunee village.

The use of habitation remains has long been recognized as an effective method to estimate population sizes especially in the absence of written records (Schacht 1981).

Furthermore, the research by Snow (1995a) and Warrick (1990; 2008) clearly display the effectiveness of these methods for studying Iroquoian populations. The key in any project that attempts to use these methods is to define a culturally meaningful residential unit and connect it to an archaeological feature. This usually comes in the form of a family size, which must be estimated. Estimates often result from ethnographic analogy or a simple guess (Schacht 1981). However, detailed ethnographic information from European merchants, explorers, and missionaries from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries provides this information without the need of guessing or attributing a questionable analogy from the cultural characteristics of an outside group to the Haudenosaunee.

Previous researchers estimated the occupation dates used in this study, and the dates used are those agreed upon by current archaeologists working in the region.

Appendix A contains detailed descriptions of the archaeological and ethnohistoric data used to estimate the occupation dates for each site. The following is a general discussion of the methods used to date the sites.

I take Mohawk site dates from the results of the Mohawk Valley Project (Snow

1995a). Snow and others generated the Mohawk site chronology from radiocarbon dates on early sites and trade bead sequences and diagnostic artifacts (i.e. iron axes and marine shell wampum) for later sites (Snow 1995a:290). They also used historic records like Van den Bogaert’s (Snow et al 1996:1-13) AD 1635 visit to the Mohawk and Wentworth

28 Greenhalgh’s (O’Callahan 1850-1:12) AD 1677 journey to the Haudenosaunee in

conjunction with archaeological data to chronologically organize seventeenth century

village sites. Historic events such as the establishment of Fort Nassau and the arrival of

Dutch trade in AD 1614, the relocation of Mohawk villages south of the Mohawk River in

AD 1626 to avoid Mahican attacks (Snow 1995a:241), and the move of villages north of

the river after the French attacked in 1666 (JR 50:141-145) also helped to date sites.

Only recently has a concerted effort been made to determine discrete occupation

dates for Oneida settlements. Martha Sempowski used glass trade beads and other

European items for late sixteenth century and seventeenth century sites (Sempowski

2004). The early sixteenth century site dates were estimated by Theodore Whitney, Peter

Pratt, Monte Bennett, and Anthony Wonderley based on pottery style sequences,

projectile point seriation, and radiocarbon dates (Whitney 1970; Whitney 1971; Pratt

1963; Pratt 1976; Wonderley n.d.; Wonderley 2006). Again, events like Wentworth

Greenhalgh’s visit in AD 1677 and the French attack in AD 1696 allowed these researchers

to anchor particular sites in time and arrange settlements around them.

James Bradley provides the Onondaga dates based on over thirty years of his

research and previous research by James Tuck. Specifically, he estimated dates from

trade bead sequences, pottery sequences, and historical records (Bradley 1987; Bradley personal communication 2006). The Greenhalgh visit and French attack also helped in creating the Onondaga chronology.

The dating of Cayuga sites is largely a result of the efforts of Robert DeOrio. He used pipe stem diameters and earlier research into the topic by Harrison Follette to refine the Cayuga settlement sequence (DeOrio 1999). However, with very little opportunity to

29 generate population data, the dates of the Cayuga sites are irrelevant to this portion of the

research.

The Seneca chronology is believed to be very reliable although it does not begin

until the mid-sixteenth century. This puts the Seneca at a slight disadvantage when

studying the possible onset of pre-contact disease events. Seneca settlement dates come

from trade bead sequences developed by Martha Sempowski (Wray et al 1987; Wray et al

1991; Sempowski and Saunders 2001). There are several known historical events that

allow for the determination of precise dates. The arrival of Huron refugees in AD 1649

(JR LII:52-5), establishment of Jesuit missions in AD 1668 (JR LII:194-7), Greenhalgh’s

visit in AD 1677, and Denonville’s attack in AD 1687 (O’Callahan 1855:358-9).

Methodological Considerations

PRECISION OF DATING

When dealing with multiple settlements occupied successfully over a relatively

short time period, as is done here, an accurate chronology of the settlements is required to complete a population curve. It is an absolute necessary to determine the sequence of occupation at archaeological sites as well as which sites were occupied contemporaneously.

In the following chapter, I present discrete establishment and abandonment dates for the sites as they have been presented in previous publications (the references can be found in the site descriptions in Appendix A). These previous studies presented these

30 dates in tabular form as absolute dates. The same is done here. However, outside of historically recorded site dates for those occupied from the early seventeenth century and later, these dates should not be viewed as immutable (Sempowski and Saunders 2001).

There is a range of potential error associated with each establishment and abandonment date. This is acceptable at the large scale in which this research is conducted because the ultimate goal is to determine contemporaneity, or the lack there-of, and place sites in the correct chronological order. Thus, the dates are used as a guide to identify which sites were likely to have been occupied at some particular point in time or during a particular period encompassing one or two decades. The goal of this study is to discuss trends over the 200-year period. The actual dates of settlement establishment and abandonment are only important for a very small number of arguments presented in the following chapter.

In these few cases, I explicitly discuss the impact of the dating methods on my interpretations.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS

Occupation at Haudenosaunee villages often lasted a generation or less, and unlike other Iroquoian groups and Haudenosaunee sites occupied prior to AD 1500, sites were rarely reoccupied. In addition, there does not appear to have been overlap in the occupation of successive sites occupied by a single community. Thus, the remains of most Haudenosaunee settlements present snapshots of the population for given five- to twenty-year periods. Population would have certainly changed between initial settlement and abandonment of any particular village, and measuring the extent of the settlement

31 area offers only a glimpse of the village population at its largest. The assumption is that

the change in size of a successive village represents population change. During a period

of fluctuating population, minor increases and decreases in community population will be

missed using this method. However, the large-scale pattern and significant population

changes will not be overlooked. A more detailed analysis of community population

changes, as opposed to regional trends, would require complete and careful excavation of

all longhouse structures to determine building episodes and the evidence of longhouse expansion or contraction. The smaller scale of analysis would make a useful complement to this research but is beyond the present goals this research.

SURFACE MAPPING

The goal of the fieldwork portion of this research is to identify and map the

boundary of the village living space for as many of the 125 villages as possible. The

ability to surface map a site is based on the amount of existing knowledge of the

settlement patterns at the site. Under ideal circumstances, the most accurate and reliable

method for determining the location of site boundaries at Northern Iroquoian sites would

be to conduct a complete horizontal excavation and locate palisade post molds, middens,

or artifact extents at hundreds of sites. However, a project such as this would require the

complete horizontal excavations of several village sites. That type of excavation is

exceedingly destructive with regards to future excavations and compared to minimally

invasive survey techniques. It is also far too expensive and time consuming to be

32 seriously considered. This is especially true when there are other, less expensive and destructive avenues that can be pursued.

In this research, I locate village boundaries through non-invasive techniques based on the accumulation of previously obtained settlement data. The approximate location of the boundary must be carefully determined from several lines of evidence.

These lines of evidence are the result of 100+ years of settlement pattern archaeology conducted at Onondaga and Seneca sites and 50+ years at Oneida sites. The known location of the palisade is the best evidence as it defines the exact limit of occupation, but this information does not exist for all sites and not every site was palisaded. In addition to palisade locations, this work defined site extents with the known location of middens and cemeteries, topography, and the extent of surface occupational debris.

Errors are inevitable in this method because the actual locations of these features are not being directly located under the surface. I indirectly locate the best possible location on the surface above those features based on existing knowledge. Snow (1995a) first used this method for Mohawk sites. Ideally, a comparison of area measurements based on surface mapping to those based on complete excavation would indicate errors in the method and the direction in which they tend to err. However, there are few completely excavated Haudenosaunee sites, and none of those have surface area estimates to compliment the excavation measurements.

The methods used here are almost certainly slight overestimations of site size.

Middens and cemeteries define the maximum possible extent of settlement. Likewise, even if post-occupation movement of surface artifacts due to agricultural activity is disregarded, the distribution of surface artifacts also defines a maximum extent. This is

33 related to midden locations, which were outside the village living area, and the fact that

many daily activities occurred outside the village area. Finally, the use of topography

again defines a maximum possible extent of settlement, not necessarily the actual extent.

Villages often used the total available flat area when located in restricted locations in

order to follow natural contours and take advantage of natural defenses (Engelbrecht

2003) but not in all cases. These facts led Snow and Starna (1989) to estimate a 10% error rate in site-specific population sizes and any resulting aggregate numbers. The reporting and discussion of population changes is not affected in the same manner. If one assumes this method produces results that are proportionally large for all sites, it still allows for accurate comparisons of site sizes and resulting population estimates.

AREA ESTIMATES VERSUS HISTORICAL INFORMATION

For sites with historic references to demographic characteristics, those data were

compared to the area estimates and density ratios, when this data was available. In some

cases, the only demographic data were historical references. There were only a small

number of cases where both were available. For the Seneca Ganondagan site, the area measurement yielded a population of 1867, and Greenhalgh’s (O’Callahan 1850-1:12) historical information resulted in a population of 1852. For the Seneca Totiakton site, the area measurement yielded a population of 3060, and Greenhalgh’s information resulted in a population of 1482. The Ganondagan site has been the focus of several excavations and surveys to determine the extent of occupation. Thus, the site area measurement is an accurate reflection of the extent of occupation. At the Totiakton site, avocational

34 archaeologists surface collected and identified cemeteries. These data provide only a

maximum site size, accounting for the discrepancy between the archaeological and

historic population estimates. As a result of this uncertainty with the site area

measurement, I use Greenhalgh’s information to estimate the population size at the sites

he visited. The Ganondagan site is a much better example for comparing the two

methods. Unfortunately, it is the only one with which to make this comparison at this

time.

Most of the population data from the contact period is in the form of house counts

or warrior counts. For house counts, a relationship of the number of people per house is

required to calculate the population size at a site. However, most historic accounts only provide house numbers and often do not give any information about the size of the houses or the number of compartments contained within. Excavated village sites can provide an average house size and with our knowledge of the average length of

Haudenosaunee compartment lengths, a number of compartments can be determined.

With the known average Haudenosaunee family size and the relationship of one family per compartment, population sizes can be estimated. Nonetheless, the sample size of excavated longhouses is small and there is much variability between them. Using these estimates of average house length would result in large errors. As a result, house count data is useful only in conjunction with information on longhouse length, hearth numbers, or compartment numbers at the site in question.

For warrior counts, several ethnohistoric accounts (Mook 1944; Kay 1984; Ghere

1997; DeVoto 1953:207, 233) have led to the establishment of a ratio of one warrior to

every four people for Native American societies. This ratio can be used to convert these

35 counts into estimates of population size. Thus, the warrior counts provide a simple means for generating a reliable population estimate. This ratio is applied several times in this study. However, it must be noted that warrior counts have a high potential for biased reporting. Military personnel, who have incentive to inflate the number of enemies in both victories and defeats, often record warrior counts. Therefore, the source of the warrior counts must be considered when using them to calculate population estimates. In addition, there is the rare evidence of population sizes recorded by merchants or travelers after a visit to a village. Opposite to warrior counts, these estimates can sometimes be under-representations if these individuals visited communities when a portion of the population was absent. This would have been common in Haudenosaunee villages where hunting/war parties of men were often away for weeks or months at a time (Snow 1994).

APPLICATION OF AREA-PER-PERSON RATIOS

I assumed the relationship of site area-per-person established for the Mohawk

(Snow and Starna 1989; Snow 1995a, 1995c), and supported by Wendat data (Warrick

2003), was appropriate for the Onondaga, Oneida, and Seneca sites based on the known

cultural similarities between these four nations. After measuring the site areas, I next

applied one of the area-per-person ratios to each site. Three main criteria influenced this

decision: (1) the physiographic location of the site, (2) the date of the site, and (3)

continuity in the sequence. Snow (1995a) applied ratios based on the date of the site and

the corresponding sociopolitical climate. For example, the first part of the sixteenth

century was relatively peaceful, so communities were less concerned with defensibility of

36 their settlements. Generally speaking, villages were located in less defensible locations

and settlement was more dispersed. During most of the sixteenth century, tensions between Native American groups in Iroquoia increased. This continued through the first half of the seventeenth century with the newly arrived Dutch, English, and French colonists. Communities were taking more defensive measures with their settlements, and living in more compact settlements was one of these measures. After this time, density of occupation appears to decrease as a result of European-influenced depopulation.

My classification was slightly different. For the Oneida and Onondaga, the physiographic setting of a site was given primacy. In my analysis of the Mohawk settlements, a pattern emerged in which settlements located in areas with restricted building space tended to be more densely occupied and those in more open areas were less densely occupied. The aforementioned sociopolitical patterns are closely tied to the physiographic location of settlements. The restricted locations tend to be on ridgetops that were more defensible because of the high elevation and steep slopes that define the boundaries of the site. Alternatively, sites located on broad hills or low plains were not as defensible, but had more room to build. During the times of heightened inter-group conflict, the majority of sites were located in these spatially restricted locations linking physiographic location to time periods. Therefore, sites located on parcels with restricted level ground were assigned the ratio of 12 m2 per person. Sites located on broad hills

were assigned the ratio of 20 m2 per person. This removes any possible mistakes in the

chronology from the ratio application.

There were some exceptions that required examination of the continuity in the

settlement sequence in order to apply a ratio. For these sites, the one of the two ratios was

37 applied on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the known sites dating directly

before and after the site in question, the internal structure of the site (when known), and

information contained in historical documentation (when available). I analyzed

discontinuities (i.e. drastic rises and falls in site size) to determine the different results

that would occur with different ratios. This process maximized the overall smoothness of the demographic curve. Such adjustments reduced the appearance of false stability or false population increases and/or decreases.

For example, during a period of known population increase, a site in question has a slightly larger overall size compared to its predecessor and slightly smaller than its successor. However, it is located in an open setting while the other two sites are located in a restricted setting. Strict adherence to the above rule would result in a sudden decrease in population and significant increase in the middle of a sustained gradual increase.

Discontinuities in ratios and populations such as this, while possible in reality, are avoided in this model. Several Seneca villages required special consideration in this matter because they were built in unusual physiographic settings compared to the other nations. Almost all sites were located in open settings. In the absence of any physiographic distinction, the application of ratios to Seneca sites was based on the occupation dates of the site, similar the application of ratios to the Mohawk sites.

38 Chapter 3: Population Trends of the Haudenosaunee, AD 1500-1700

Research on Mohawk populations (Snow and Starna 1988; Snow and Lanphear

1989; Snow 1995a, 1995b, 2000) and Wendat-Tionontaté populations (Warrick 1990,

2000, 2003, 2008) produced accurate population estimates through empirically based

research on the settlement patterns of regional populations. These studies, described in the previous chapter, serve as models for the methodological approach in this study.

Snow (1995a, 1995c) estimated Mohawk population sizes and trends over time, and I use his data with only minor alterations in this research. Cayuga population information is severely lacking in comparison to the other four Haudenosaunee cultures

because useful settlement and ethnohistoric information exists for only four Cayuga sites.

This prevents estimating population sizes for the majority of the settlements. As a result,

a population curve cannot be formed for this nation.

Methods

Of the 125 sites used in this research, I measured 45 using direct surface mapping

with a Thales MobileMapper CE GPS unit equipped with ArcPad mapping software. This

GPS unit offers accuracy within one meter using an internal Wide Area Augmentation

System/European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System (WAAS/EGNOS). Plus or

minus three meter accuracy is usually acceptable for larger phenomena such as sites or

monuments (Connolly and Lake 2006:64). Sites were mapped during the months of May

through October of both 2006 and 2007. This was done entirely on the surface; no

39 excavation was conducted. I mapped site boundaries using the polygon and polyline functions within the ArcPad interface. When obstacles such as buildings or impenetrable brush prevented access to portions of a boundary, I collected five location readings and averaged them to create a waypoint. I then circumvented the obstacle and created a waypoint on the opposite side. I assumed the line between the two waypoints to be direct.

ArcPad calculated areas in square meters instantaneously upon the completion of each site boundary.

Of the remaining 80 sites, 58 had existing and accurate area measurements or historical demographic references that allowed for population estimates. The large majority of these were 39 Mohawk sites, which were previously studied by Snow (see

1995a). This group also includes seven Seneca sites, which had either been previously measured by Rochester Museum and Science Center (RMSC) staff using the location of cemeteries and extent of surface artifact finds or are mentioned in historical texts. Four

Cayuga sites, seven Oneida sites, and one Onondaga site had also been previously measured or mentioned in historical documents. This information is summarized in

Tables 3.2, 3.5, and 3.9 and discussed in more depth below. The remaining twenty-two sites, fourteen of them Cayuga, could not be measured at this time because of a lack of settlement data and historical references.

I used existing site maps, site descriptions from past archaeological research, and the knowledge from people who excavated the sites to estimate the locations of site boundaries on the surface. Using these resources as guides, the known locations of palisade remains, middens, artifact scatters, and cemeteries were identified on the surface. Once the locations of as many of these remains as possible were recognized, I

40 traversed the closest approximation of the boundary. The GPS unit recorded my walking

path and created a map of my movement around the boundary. I conducted this work

completely on the surface without any disturbance to the site or associated artifacts. I

used as many of the aforementioned features as were available at each site (see Tables

3.2, 3.5, and 3.9 for a summary). I also collected background information from

ethnohistoric sources to determine the existence of information regarding the size of

villages, number of houses, numbers of hearths, or population counts for any of the sites

used in this research.

Dividing the site areas by the area-per-person ratios produced site-specific

population estimates. For each individual nation, these estimates were then combined and ordered based on the previously established settlement chronology to make a population curve over the time period of AD 1500 to AD 1700.

The site-specific numbers reported in this chapter are estimates and carry a 10% error rate in either direction. Knowledge of the internal structure of the sites would help

to determine more accurate site-specific estimates. However, this type of information is

sparse at this time. The estimates from this research are suitable for a general discussion

concerning overall population sizes and comparisons over time in relation to the other

sites and with reference to the total site areas within each nation.

Additionally, this method only estimates the population of each village at one

particular point in time over its entire occupation. Since the internal configuration of

longhouses is unknown for most sites, the site area represents the largest population that

lived at the site. For example, during a period of population increase, the largest village

size would be attained just prior to abandonment. Therefore, the overall size of the

41 archaeological site represents the population at the end of the occupation. During a period of population decline, the largest population size would occur at the initial occupation of a village. Thus, the overall size of the site represents the population at the establishment of the settlement. There are two problems with this.

The first, and previously mentioned, problem is that this will blur some of the population change at the community level over the lifespan of a village. However, significant and long-term change should be identified in the successive building of a larger or smaller village.

The second problem is that any change found here is only recognized by the construction of a new village or set of villages when, in fact, the change likely occurred during the occupation of the previous village(s). Thus, the significant population changes should be identified, but the timing of changes may be slightly misrepresented. During a period of population decrease, the timing of the decrease will appear later than it actually occurred. During a period of population increase, the timing will be advanced. I take every effort to account for this problem in the discussion. These effects will have a slight impact on the shape of the curve, but will not interfere with the direction of the trends themselves. In addition, this does little to inhibit the descriptive power of the model, as population changes are still identifiable.

Results

Figure 3.2 displays the cumulative results of the population estimates for the

Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Western and Eastern Seneca. The Cayuga sites do not

42 have enough settlement data to produce site-specific population estimates at this time.

More detailed descriptions of the populations for the individual nations follow.

9000

8000

7000

6000

Mohawk 5000 Onondaga Oneida 4000 Western Seneca Eastern Seneca 3000

2000

1000

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.1: The changes in population for all of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca nations. The Seneca data are presented as the Eastern and Western divisions.

MOHAWK RESULTS

The Mohawk site area and population estimates (Figures 3.2 and 3.3 and Table

3.1) were taken directly from demographic research conducted by Dean Snow (1995a).

The only change between that study and this are minor revisions made to population estimates for sites dating to the late seventeenth century.

43 140000 1635 120000

100000 1626

80000

60000 1666 1640 1659 40000 1614 1679 1670 1646 20000 1560 1580 1545 1500 0 1693 Date (AD)

Figure 3.2: Changes in Mohawk site area over time. Data are from Snow (1995a).

9000 1626 8000 1635 7000

6000

5000

4000 1614 1640 3000 1666 1659 2000 1670 1545 1525 1646 1000 1580 1679 1500 1560 0 1693 Date (AD)

Figure 3.3: Changes in Mohawk population size over time. Data are from Snow (1995a).

44 For the period of AD 1666 to AD 1679, Snow (1995a:414) briefly mentions an unnamed site that is noted in historic accounts but could not be located and included in his study. He concluded that the village was either a temporary settlement or an Oneida outpost. This site is included here because Greenhalgh notes that the site contained ten longhouses (O’Callahan 1850-1:12). This is only slightly smaller than the villages of

Canagora and Canajorha, which have 16 houses apiece. This is a very minor change and does not impact the overall population estimate. It only changes the distribution of that overall population between the individual villages. As a result, this study takes into the account the information presented by Snow (1995a:414) that shows the change in population from 2000 (including the Wendat immigrants) to 1200 that occurs at the sites occupied between AD 1666 and AD 1679.

I made more significant changes to Snow’s estimates during the AD 1679 to AD

1693 period. Snow (1995a:430) calculated a population of 300 for the Caughnawaga site

and a population of 700 for the White Orchard/Lipe site combination. The Lipe site was

the unfinished and never occupied successor to the White Orchard site. As mentioned

above and described in more detail in Appendix A, I infer that the population at White

Orchard decreased over the previous period from 700 to 375. This results in a population

of 675 compared to Snow’s estimate of 1100.

45 Site Name Dates Area (m2) Ratio Applied Population Otstungo 1450-1525 7572 12 631 Cayadutta 1525-1545 8050 12 671 Garoga 1525-1545 9876 12 823 Klock 1540-1565 11,520 12 960 Smith-Pagerie 1560-1580 13,200 12 110 Chapin 1580-1614 4500 12 375 Barker 1580-1614 7700 12 642 England's Woods #1 1580-1614 7850 12 654 Rice's Woods 1580-1614 12 983 Van der Werken 1580-1614 11,800 12 435 Martin 1614-1626 5220 12 1092 Wagner's Hollow 1614-1626 13,100 12 1425 Briggs Run 1614-1626 17,100 12 958 Coleman-Van Duesen 1614-1626 11,500 1250 Failing 1615-1635 3300 Cromwell 1626-1635 49,480 20 2160 Yates 1626-1635 360 Brown 1626-1635 35,000 1920 Rumrill-Naylor 1635-1640 20 730 Prospect Hill 1635-1640 8700 540 Sand Hill #1 1635-1640 13,000 840 Bauder 1635-1640 10,100 20 720 Van Evera-McKinney 1640-1646 20 505 Oak Hill #1 1640-1646 20 530 Printup 1646-1659 10,600 20 378 Janie 1646-1666 7570 20 125 Mitchell 1646-1666 20 720 Horatio Nellis 1646-1666 2500 20 225 Fisk 1646-1666 14,400 100 Allen 1646-1666 4500 20 190 Freeman 1659-1666 378 Jackson-Everson 1657-1679 3800 20 570 Fox Farm 1666-1679 11,400 20 300 Schenk 1666-1679 6900 200 Small unnamed village 1666-1679 125 White Orchard 1666-1693 20 375 Caughnawaga 1679-1693 14,000 20 300 Lipe 1679-1693 6000 20 0 Table 3.1: Summary of site size and population data for Mohawk sites. The population numbers have a +/- 10% error.

46 ONEIDA RESULTS

45000

40000

35000 1575 30000

25000 1550 1685 1650 20000 1700 1660 1600 1635 15000

10000 1500 1525 1620 5000

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.4: Changes in Oneida site area over time.

3000

2500

2000 1650 1575 1500 1600 1635 1696 1550 1500 1000 1700 1525 1660 1620 1685 500 1680

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.5: Changes in Oneida population size over time.

47 Seven of twenty Oneida sites were mapped using notes from site excavations existing site maps, and the knowledge of people who excavated the site. Table 3.2 lists the resources and site characteristics used to determine the site area. I mapped seven

Oneida sites and there are a number of sites with existing scaled maps as well as a number of sites with too little settlement information to approximate the boundaries. At the Moon, Goff, and Bach sites, Pratt (1976) measured the area of the plateaus that they reside on providing an estimate of the maximum size. Additionally, there are five sites,

Olcott (DeAngelo 1963), Vaillancourt (Weiskotten, 1994a), Diable (Weiskotten, 1989),

Wilson (Hosbach and Gibson 1980), and Stone Quarry (Weiskotten 1994b) with scaled maps that compile all known settlement information. Mapping at these sites is restricted due to previous destruction or lack of access. Thus, the maps are the best resources at this time. The March, Collins, and Dungey sites have had little or no archaeological investigation into their settlement patterns and they have no defining topography. Dungey has a historical reference (Brandão 2003), but there is no mention of site features or population size in this account.

The Buyea site was excavated in the late 1960’s revealing a complete longhouse measuring 120 ft long by 17.5 ft wide and portions of another longhouse with similar dimensions (Whitney 1970). Later work estimated that two to four more houses could fit at the site (Whitney 1970; Pratt 1976). Depending on the number of longhouses the population would have been either 240 or 360 individuals. This depends on the length of the longhouses (assuming either four or six longhouses with lengths of 120 feet), an average compartment length of 19 feet (Starna 1980:375), and family sizes of five individuals (Snow and Starna 1989:144). Whitney (1970) also uncovered six hearths in

48 the completely excavated longhouse also indicating a population of 60 people per

dwelling (two families per hearth and five people per family). Consequently, an average

population of 300 was used.

The last of the unmapped sites, Primes Hill, has a historical reference. In AD 1714,

William Andrews visited an Oneida village and the inhabitants told him that their village contained 1100-1200 individuals (Andrews 1714:125). The Primes Hill site is the only

Oneida village site that dates to this period. The Collins site does not have sufficient settlement data to estimate a size, but Greenhalgh’s warrior count provides a reliable population estimate. In AD 1677, Wentworth Greenhalgh traveled through

Haudenosaunee territory to assess the strength of the Confederacy. He provided warrior

counts that are generally assumed to be reliable. He had no obvious motive for

misrepresenting the strength of the Haudenosaunee at this time, so I used his estimates

here without reservation. Greenhalgh’s warrior count of 200 (O’Callaghan 1849-51:12)

results in a population estimate of 800 for the Collins village site. This is a period of the

sequence with problematic dates. The correct order of the Sullivan, Collins, and Upper

Hogan sites is not firmly established. However, based on trade bead sequences and

historic events, as described in Appendix A for these particular sites, I believe the current

chronological order is the most accurate given the current information.

49 Site Name Site Map Hist Ref Palisade Middens Topography Artifact Extent Buyea Yes Moon Goff Brunk X X Olcott Yes Vaillancourt Yes Bach Diable Yes Cameron Yes X X Blowers Yes X X X Wilson Yes Thurston Yes Yes X X X X Marshall Yes X X Stone Quarry Yes Dungey Yes March Sullivan Yes Yes X X Collins Upper Hogan X X Primes Hill Yes Yes Table 3.2: The criteria used to determine site boundaries at the Oneida sites. The site map for the Buyea site is from Whitney (1970). The site maps for the Olcott, Diable, Cameron, Blowers, Wilson, Thurston, Marshall, and Quarry sites are unpublished and in the possession of Gordon DeAngelo. The site map for the Vaillancourt site is from Wonderley (2006). The site maps for the Sullivan and Primes Hill sites are unpublished and in the possession of Monte Bennett. The historical reference for Thurston is Snow et al (1996); for Dungey is Brandão (2003); for Sullivan is from Bennett (1973); for Collins is O’Callahan (1850-1); for Upper Hogan is from Bennett and Cole (1974); and for Primes Hill is Andrews (1714).

Table 3.3 displays the reasoning used to apply a site area-per-person ratio to each of the Oneida sites. The Oneida sites fall neatly into two categories based on the physiographic setting of the site. The only exception is the Marshall site. I applied the 12 m2 ratio to this site to maintain continuity with the contemporaneous Thurston site, which was built in a restricted location. I did not apply the 20 m2 ratio to both because it would have resulted in a population decrease during a time of settlement area increase. I maintained a direct relationship between these variables whenever possible under the

50 assumption that communities that experienced a loss of population did not build larger villages. This is the trend for the Mohawk, and I applied this to the other nations.

Ratio Applied (per Site Name Dates (AD) Description of Location person) Buyea 1490-1515 Unknown Moon 1490-1515 Restricted; small plateau 12 m2 Goff 1490-1515 Restricted; small plateau 12 m2 Brunk 1490-1515 Unrestricted; small rise on sloping hill 20 m2 Olcott 1525-1545 Unrestricted; broad hilltop 20 m2 Vaillancourt 1550-1575 Unrestricted; broad hilltop 20 m2 Bach 1560-1580 Restricted; ridge surrounded by marsh 12 m2 Diable 1570-1600 Restricted; ridge by a stream 12 m2 Cameron 1605-1620 Restricted; spit of land between two streams 12 m2 Blowers 1620-1635 Restricted; spit of land between two streams 12 m2 Wilson 1620-1635 Restricted; spit of land between two streams 12 m2 Thurston 1635-1655 Unrestricted; large plateau 20 m2 Marshall 1635-1655 Unrestricted; low rise on rolling hills 20 m2 Stone Quarry 1650-1660 Unrestricted; large plateau 20 m2 Dungey 1655-1670 Unrestricted; large plateau March 1655-1670 Unrestricted; low rise on flat area Sullivan 1665-1677 Unrestricted; large plateau 20 m2 Collins 1677-1685 Unrestricted; hillside Upper Hogan 1685-1696 Unrestricted; large plateau 20 m2 Primes Hill 1696-1720 Unrestricted; on a large, sloping hill Table 3.3: Information used to assign area per person ratios at Oneida sites.

The results of the area calculations are shown in Table 3.4 and Figure 3.4. The aggregate Oneida site area rose steadily until AD 1550, after which it began to decline rapidly until AD 1600. At the beginning of this period the Oneida people were living in

the large Vaillancourt village. They then moved on to the two smaller Bach and Diable

villages followed by the Cameron village. After this point, the aggregate site area

increased steadily until AD 1635. It then decreased slightly up to AD 1650, which marks the beginning of a 35-year period with no information. In AD 1685, the aggregate site area was slightly higher than it was 35 years earlier, and it dropped slightly until 1700 at the

51 end of the study period. This curve looks very different from both the Onondaga and

Mohawk site area curves. A significant decrease occurred similar to the other two, but the

Oneida decrease started about 75 years before the Mohawk decline and almost 100 years

earlier than the similar Onondaga event. The second occurred at the same time at the

Onondaga decrease and slightly after the Mohawk decrease.

Site Name Dates Area (m2) Ratio Applied Population Buyea 1490-1515 Moon 1490-1515 2023 20 101 Goff 1490-1515 3910 20 196 Brunk 1490-1515 3000 20 150 Olcott 1525-1545 27000 20 1350 Vaillancourt 1550-1575 34000 20 1700 Bach 1560-1580 6000 12 500 Diable 1570-1600 11100 12 925 Cameron 1605-1620 8524 12 710 Blowers 1620-1635 11800 12 983 Wilson 1620-1635 4500 12 375 Thurston 1635-1655 13523 12 1127 Marshall 1635-1655 7938 20 397 Stone Quarry 1650-1660 18600 20 930 Dungey 1655-1670 March 1655-1670 Sullivan 1665-1677 7846 20 392 Collins 1677-1685 800 Upper Hogan 1685-1696 25580 20 1279 Primes Hill 1696-1720 1150 Table 3.4: Summary of site size and population data for Oneida sites. The population numbers have a +/- 10% error.

The population curve generated from the area estimates and area per person ratios

is displayed in Figure 3.5. The population grew steadily until AD 1575 and then declined

until AD 1620, as was seen in the site area data in Figure 3.4. However, the population then increased sharply until AD 1650, when it reached a slightly higher population than in

52 AD 1575. From there the population declined until AD 1660. After the gap in information, the Oneida population increased between AD 1680 and AD 1690 before declining in AD

1700. Again, this pattern looks different from the Mohawk population curve much in the

same way the site area data did. The significant decrease in population occurred much

earlier for the Oneida and the population leveled off after recovery. There was also a

more complete population recovery after the loss than occurred for the Mohawk

population.

ONONDAGA RESULTS

45000

40000 1700 35000 1645 1650

30000 1682 1695 25000 1663 1625

20000 1610 1655 15000

10000 1590 1500 1525 5000 1570

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.6: Changes in Onondaga site area over time.

53 3000 1645 1650 2500

1625 1700 2000

1610 1695 1500 1655 1682 1000 1663

1590 500 1570 1500 1525 0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.7: Changes in Onondaga population size over time.

Using site maps and the knowledge of people who previously excavated the sites,

I mapped 14 of 21 Onondaga village sites. Table 3.5 shows the archaeological and physiographic characteristics used at each site to identify the location of the site boundary. Five sites in Table 3.5 have no data. Access was not permitted to the McNab,

Barnes, and Nursery sites, and the Pickering and Pratt’s Falls sites do not have enough information to determine site boundaries. The latter two sites exist only as small collections of artifacts and only approximate locations are known. The Barnes site does have a scaled map, but the accuracy of it is in question. The Indian Castle site was not mapped because permission to access the site was denied by the owner, so an existing map outlining the exterior middens was used (Sohrweide n.d.). Although settlement data were available for the Indian Hill site, lack of permission by one of the landowners

54 prevented the creation of a complete map of the site. However, there is a historically documented population estimate for the Onondaga during the time of occupation at the

Indian Hill site. While among the Onondagas, he noted that “[t]he Onondagoes are said to be about 350 fighting men” (O’Callaghan 1849-51:12). This results in a population of about 1400 Onondagas if the warrior count represents one quarter of the population.

Site Name Site Map Hist Ref Palisade Middens Topography Artifact Extent Cemetery X X Indian Hill II X Nursery Barnes Yes McNab Temperance House X X Atwell X X Quirk X Sheldon X Pickering Chase X X X Dwyer X X Pompey Center X X X X Pratt's Falls Shurtleff X X X Carley X X X Lot 18 Yes X X X Indian Castle Yes X X Indian Hill Yes Weston Yes Yes X Jamesville X X X Table 3.5: The criteria used to determine site boundaries at the Onondaga sites. The site maps for the Barnes site is unpublished and in the possession of Gordon DeAngelo. The site map for the Indian Castle site is unpublished and in the possession of A. Gregory Sohrweide. The site map for the Weston site is from Sohrweide (2001). Bradley (1987) provides the historical reference for the Lot 18 site; O’Callahan (1850-1) for the Indian Hill site; and Sohrweide (2007) for the Weston site.

The only confusion with this historical reference is that Greenhalgh states that the

Onondaga have only one village while later in the document he alludes to another,

55 smaller Onondaga village. No other archaeological site has been found in the area

described by Greenhalgh, or the Onondaga region, that fits the description of this site. He

may have been referring to a small hamlet or seasonal camp, or the village may be yet

undiscovered. Greenhalgh’s warrior count is of the total Onondaga population, so the

estimate is useful in discussions of population trends over time regardless of the number

of villages present at that time.

Table 3.6 explains the reasoning behind the application of the area-per-person

ratios. As mentioned above, the first characteristic used was the physiographic setting.

All but three sites held to this classification scheme. The Shurtleff, Carley, and Lot 18

sites were located in relatively unrestricted areas, but sloping and/or rolling ground on the

hilltops prevented a neat categorization. The ratio of 12 m2 per person was applied for the

2 following reasons. For the Shurtleff site (AD 1635-45), the ratio of 12 m per person was

used because overall village area continues to grow from the previous period. Applying the 20 m2-per-person ratio would have signaled a drop in population from the earlier

Pompey Center site. This would not be out of the ordinary, but it created a dilemma.

When the Mohawk experienced depopulation, they rebuilt smaller villages.

Following this evidence, I concluded that it would have been unlikely for the

Onondaga to experience a depopulation event and build a larger village afterward. The

same reasoning applied to the Carley site (AD 1645-50), whose size was slightly larger

2 than the Shurtleff site. In regards to the Lot 18 site (AD 1650-55), the 12 m per person

ratio was applied to account for the historical documentation of a disease event in AD

1657 (JR 44:43). This site shows the first obvious evidence of a disruption in the

settlement patterns, and either ratio displays the effects of this on the population. In fact,

56 the application of either ratio to the Lot 18 site has very little effect on the overall shape of the population curve.

Ratio Applied Site Name Dates (AD) Description of Location (per person) Cemetery 1500-1525 Restricted; spit of land between two streams 12 m2 Indian Hill II 1500-1525 Unrestricted; low rise on broad hill 20 m2 Nursery 1525-1550 Unrestricted; streamside Barnes 1525-1550 Restricted; ridgetop McNab 1525-1550 Unrestricted; low hill Temperance House 1550-1570 Restricted; plateau above two streams 12 m2 Atwell 1550-1570 Restricted; spit of land on sloping hillside 12 m2 Restricted; plateau above two converging Quirk 1570-1590 streams 12 m2 Sheldon 1570-1590 Restricted; plateau bordered by marshes 12 m2 Pickering 1570-1590 Unknown Chase 1590-1610 Restricted; spit of land between two streams 12 m2 Dwyer 1590-1610 Unrestricted; broad hilltop 20 m2 Restricted; surrounded by marshes and a Pompey Center 1610-1625 stream 12 m2 Pratt's Falls 1625-1635 Unknown Shurtleff 1635-1645 Unrestricted; broad hilltop with steady slopes 12 m2 Carley 1645-1650 Unrestricted; broad hilltop with steady slopes 12 m2 Lot 18 1650-1655 Unrestricted; broad hilltop with steady slopes 12 m2 Indian Castle 1655-1663 Unrestricted; plateau open on three sides 20 m2 Indian Hill 1663-1682 Unrestricted; broad drumlin 20 m2 Weston 1682-1696 Unrestricted; gently sloping hillside 20 m2 Jamesville 1696-1720 Unrestricted; gently sloping hillside 20 m2 Table 3.6: Information used to assign area-per-person ratios at Oneida sites.

The results of the area calculations are shown in Table 3.7 and in Figure 3.6. Both representations show an overall increase in site area until the period of AD 1645-50,

during which a significant decrease in site area took place. The size of the Lot 18 site was

43% smaller than that of the previous Carley site. This was the only decrease in site size between any two successive Onondaga sites or sets of sites. This was very likely the first and most severe depopulation event resulting from contact with European diseases. After

57 this event, overall site size gradually increased until AD 1700 when it reached its highest point over the 200-year interval. Trends of the Onondaga site area curve are similar to those of the Mohawk, shown in Figure 3.2. Both rise for a long period, experience a dramatic drop, and then rise slowly. The only difference occurs at the very end of the study period when the Onondaga site area continues to increase, while the Mohawk site area decreases.

Site Dates Area (m2) Ratio Applied Population Cemetery 1500-1525 3420 12 285 Indian Hill II 15001525 1609 20 80 Nursery 1525-1550 Barnes 1525-1550 McNab 1525-1550 Temperance House 1550-1570 4163 12 346 Atwell 1550-1570 1375 12 114 Quirk 1570-1590 1989 12 166 Sheldon 1570-1590 6643 12 553 Pickering 1570-1590 Chase 1590-1610 6927 12 577 Dwyer 1590-1610 11930 12 994 Pompey Center 1610-1625 23980 12 1998 Pratt's Falls 1625-1635 Shurtleff 1635-1645 32290 12 2690 Carley 1645-1650 32620 12 2718 Lot 18 1650-1655 18400 12 1533 Indian Castle 1655-1663 22790 20 1139 Indian Hill 1663-1682 28000 20 1400 Weston 1682-1696 29160 20 1458 Jamesville 1696-1720 38630 20 1931 Table 3.7: Summary of site size and population data for Onondaga sites. The population numbers have a +/- 10% error.

Figure 3.7 shows the population curve for the Onondaga from AD 1500 to AD

1700. This is based on the site size measurements and the application of the area per person ratios explained above. The line has a similar shape to that of the site size line in

58 Figure 3.6. The most notable changes occurred after AD 1650 when the population remained relatively stable even though the site area was gradually rising. These sites were built on broad hilltops or in low areas that would have allowed for a more dispersed settlement within each village. Again, the overall shape is similar to that of the Mohawk population curve shown in Figure 3.2. The Mohawk curve has larger amplitude, but the trends in population increase are similar and the rate of decline is similar. The most significant differences are the timing of the depopulation event and the end of the study period when Onondaga population continued to rise while the Mohawk population decreased slightly after AD 1659.

CAYUGA RESULTS

Insufficient settlement data exists to determine the size of any of the Cayuga sites

that date between AD 1500 and AD 1700. However, there is data for four of the sites of

interest from previous archaeological work and ethnohistoric data. Jones and Jones

(1980) excavated the earthworks and palisade at the Indian Fort Road site and estimated

the size of the site. However, without any knowledge of the contemporaneous Parker

Farm site, a total population estimate is not possible for this period. In addition, in AD

1677, Wentworth Greenhalgh visited the Cayuga and recorded three villages, a total of

one hundred houses, and three hundred warriors (O’Callahan 1850-51:12-13). I used this

information to calculate a Cayuga population of 1200 and village populations of 300

apiece. The population data is summarized in Table 3.8. Unfortunately, this is the extent

of our knowledge of Cayuga populations at this time.

59 Site Name Dates Area (m2) Ratio Applied Population Landon 1450-1525 Colgan 1450-1525 Mahaney-Colgan 1450-1525 Weir 1450-1525 Klinko 1450-1525 Indian Fort Road 1525-1550 2200 12 1833 Parker Farm 1525-1550 Carman 1550-1600 Locke Fort 1585-1600 Genoa Fort 1600-1620 East Genoa 1600-1620 Myers Fort 1620-1640 Garrett 1640-1650 St. Stephen 1650-1680 St. Rene 1650-1680 St. Joseph 1670-1710 400 Cranebrook 1670-1710 400 Young Farm 1670-1710 400 Table 3.8: Summary of site size and population data for Cayuga sites. The population numbers have a +/- 10% error.

60 SENECA RESULTS

160000 1687 140000

120000

100000 1675

1610 80000 1620 1655 1585 60000 1640 40000 1560 20000

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.8: Changes in Seneca site area over time.

6000

1585 5000 1610 1620 1675 1655 4000 1687

3000 1640

1560 2000

1000

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.9: Changes in Seneca population over time.

61 I mapped sixteen of Twenty-eight Seneca sites using existing maps, descriptions,

and the surrounding topography. Table 3.9 displays the site features used to determine the

boundary location at each of the sites. I did not map the other twelve sites because of the high quality of existing information, a lack of information concerning settlement data, or

lack of access. The Brisbane, Menzis, Gandagaro (Marsh), Wheeler Station, and Onaghee

(Snyder-McClure) sites have too little existing settlement information to create

reasonable site area estimates. (Names in parentheses are those commonly used in

archaeology; the historical names for sites are used here to avoid confusion when

discussing historic and archaeological data together.) There are no demographic data for

the Brisbane and Onaghee sites. However, the villages represented by the Gandagaro and

Wheeler Station sites are the subjects of historical documentation relating to population size. These historical data allow for confident site-specific population estimates.

Access was not available at the Adams, Cameron, and Dutch Hollow sites.

However, detailed surface surveys by the RMSC at the Adams and Cameron sites have

delineated site boundaries and led to the creation of scaled maps. I used these maps to create estimates for both sites. In addition, surface collecting by amateur archaeologists at the Dutch Hollow site led to the creation of a scaled map of the surface artifact distribution (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:18). Without access to the site, these are the

most accurate data available with which to estimate the size of the site. Although not as

accurate as the information for the Adams and Cameron sites, it provides enough

information to create a maximum site size estimate.

62 Hist Artifact Site Name Site Map Ref Palisade Middens Topography Extent Cemeteries Belcher X Richmond Mills Yes X X Adams Yes Johnston Brisbane Dutch Hollow Yes Fugle Yes X Lima X X Bosley Mills Yes X X Power House Yes X X Menzis Gandachioragou Yes Yes X X Totiakton Yes Yes X Kient-he Yes Yes X X Onaghee Culbertson Yes X Alva Reed X X Tram Yes X X X X Cameron Yes X X X Factory Hollow Yes X X Cornish Yes X X Warren Yes X Steele Yes X X Gandagaro Yes Wheeler Station Yes Ganondagan Yes Yes Cherry Street Yes X X X Beal Yes X X Kanedesaga Yes X X Table 3.9: The criteria used to determine site boundaries at the Seneca sites. The Adams and Culbertson maps come from Wray et al 1987. The Tram and Cameron maps come from Wray et al 1991. The Dutch Hollow and Factory Hollow maps come from Sempowski and Saunders 2001. The remaining site maps are unpublished photogrametric maps in the possession of the Rochester Museum and Science Center. O’Callahan (1850- 1) is the historical reference for the Totiakton, Kient-he, Ganondagan, Cherry Street, Beal sites. Coyne (1903:20-39) is the historical reference for the Gandachioragou, Gandagaro, and Wheeler Station sites.

The Gandachioragou (Dann) and Totiakton sites have similar scaled maps created from surface artifact distributions that were used to estimate their sizes. The Ganondagan site has been the subject of frequent archaeological investigations since its designation as a New York State Historical Landmark. These excavations yielded the spatial limit of

63 artifact distributions, which was used to determine the size of the site (Dean Snow,

personal communication 2007). In addition, the Gandachioragou, Totiakton, and

Ganondagan sites have valuable historic documentation of house numbers per site and number of warriors present during their occupation that allow for site-specific population

estimates.

The Gandachioragou, Gandagaro, Wheeler Station, Totiakton, Kient-he

(Kirkwood), Ganondagan, and Cherry Street/Beal sites all have detailed historic accounts

of their settlement and population that I used as the primary evidence for estimating

population sizes (see Appendix A for a more detailed description of this information and

the following calculations). In AD 1677, during the occupation of Ganondagan, Totiakton,

Kient-he, and Cherry Street/Beal villages, Greenhalgh counted 1000 Seneca warriors

(Greenhalgh 1850-51:13), which results in a total Seneca population of 4000 individuals.

Greenhalgh also reported the number of houses in each village. Ganondagan, Totiakton,

Kient-he and Cherry Street/Beal had house counts of 150, 120, 24, and 30, respectively.

The total population of 4000 divided by the 324 houses resulted in a ratio of 12.35 people

per house. I then multiplied this ratio by the number of people in each house to determine

site-specific population sizes. In AD 1669, Galinée and LaSalle visited the Seneca and

noted that they had four villages: two large villages of 150 cabins and two small villages

of about 30 cabins (Coyne 1903:20-39). These are the Gandachioragou, Gandagaro,

Wheeler Station, and an unidentified village. I assumed that the ratio of people per

longhouse was the same during this previous period and calculated site-specific

population numbers.

64 For the Ganondagan site, the number generated from the warrior count was very

similar to that estimated from the site area using a ratio of 20 m2 per person. The warrior

count and house number yielded an estimate of 1852 people. The area and density ratio yielded an estimate of 1867 people. However, it should be noted that the

Gandachioragou, Totiakton, Kient-he, Cherry Street, and Beal sites do not follow the same pattern. These sites consistently generate higher population estimates from the area and density ratio compared to the estimates created from the warrior count and house count. There are several possible explanations for this: 1) the use of site area and density ratios is not appropriate for the late seventeenth century Seneca, 2) there is a yet-to-be- discovered ratio of site area per person for the Seneca, or 3) the site area estimates are not accurate because they are based almost completely on surface artifact scatters, which can lead to overestimation of site size. The last explanation is the likeliest because none of these sites have been studied extensively enough to accurately identify the extent of settlement. The current estimates are maximum sizes.

Table 3.10 displays the justification for the application of a ratio to each of the

Seneca sites. The Johnston, Brisbane, Menzis, and Onaghee sites have too little settlement data to estimate size. Therefore, ratios were not applied to these sites. The remaining sites were assigned ratios based on the time period and to a lesser extent physiography.

65 Ratio Applied Site Name Dates (AD) Description of Location (per person) Belcher 1540-1560 Restricted; narrow loaf of land 12 m2 Richmond Mills 1540-1560 Restricted; ridgetop 12 m2 Adams 1575-1590 Unrestricted; broad hill 20 m2 Johnston 1575-1590 Unrestricted; open, flat area Brisbane 1590-1605 Unrestricted; large, broad hill Dutch Hollow 1605-1620 Unrestricted; low, open hollow 12 m2 Fugle 1605-1620 Unrestricted; broad hill top 12 m2 Lima 1620-1640 Unrestricted; low, broad hill 12 m2 Bosley Mills 1620-1640 Restricted; ridgetop 12 m2 Power House 1640-1655 Unrestricted; open, flat area 20 m2 Menzis 1640-1655 Unrestricted; low hill Dann 1655-1675 Unrestricted; broad hill 20 m2 Totiakton 1675-1687 Unrestricted; large plateau 20 m2 Kirkwood 1675-1687 Unrestricted; broad hill 20 m2 Snyder-McClure 1688-1710 Unrestricted; low hill Culbertson 1570-1585 Unrestricted; broad hill 12 m2 Alva Reed 1570-1585 Unrestricted; broad hill 12 m2 Tram 1580-1595 Unrestricted; low hill 12 m2 Cameron 1595-1610 Unrestricted; broad hill 12 m2 Factory Hollow 1610-1625 Restricted; ridgetop 12 m2 Cornish 1625-1645 Restricted; spit of land between streams 12 m2 Warren 1625-1645 Unrestricted; hollow 20 m2 Steele 1645-1660 Unrestricted; low, broad hill 20 m2 Marsh 1660-1675 Unrestricted; flat area 20 m2 Wheeler Station 1660-1675 Unrestricted; low hill 20 m2 Ganondagan 1675-1687 Unrestricted; large ridgetop 20 m2 Cherry Street 1675-1687 Unrestricted; low hill 20 m2 Beal 1675-1687 Unrestricted; low hills 20 m2 White Springs 1690-1710 Unrestricted; high, broad hill 20 m2 Table 3.10: Information used to assign area-per-person ratios at Seneca sites.

The large majority of Seneca villages (24 out of 29) were built at unrestricted locations. This is a very different pattern than seen for the other four nations. As a result, the assignment of area-per-person ratios was more similar to the Mohawk scheme

2 developed by Snow (1995a). Sites occupied prior to AD 1630 were assigned the 12 m per person ratio, and those occupied after were assigned the 20 m2 per person ratio. The exceptions are the Adams and Dutch Hollow sites. I assigned these sites the larger population ratio. Access was not granted to these sites, so I based the size estimates

66 primarily on surface surveys conducted by the RMSC. The areas are large, and I am

reluctant to assign them the smaller ratio, which most sites have during the mid-sixteenth

century, because it would result in populations of 3300 and 3900 respectively. There is no

precedent for populations this large, and most evidence indicates that a segmentary social

organization like that employed by the Haudenosaunee would not be able to hold together

villages of much more than 2000 individuals (Snow 1994). I also suspect that if proper

excavations were conducted to locate the site boundaries, the areas would be found to be

smaller than reported here.

The results of the area calculations are displayed in Table 3.11 and Figures 3.8,

3.10, and 3.11. The total Seneca site area increased sharply from AD 1560 to AD 1585.

There is a gap in the data between AD 1585 and AD 1610. In AD 1610, the site area was

slightly lower than the level in AD 1585. The total site area then decreased slightly until

AD 1620, and decreased more severely until AD 1640. After AD 1640, the total Seneca site

area increased until the end of the study period. As mentioned, there is archaeological and

ethnographic data that indicates a division of the Seneca culture into Western and Eastern groups. The Western Seneca sites increased in size from AD 1550 to AD 1620. Site size sharply declined between AD 1620 and AD 1640. After the abandonment of the large

Dutch Hollow village in AD 1620, the Western Seneca occupied two smaller villages,

Lima and Bosley Mills. The settlement area then increased between AD 1640 and AD

1687. This next period was marked by the occupation of very large villages like

Gandachioragou and Totiakton. The Eastern Seneca settlement area increased from AD

1560 to AD 1585. It then decreased from AD 1585 to AD 1595. There was very little

67 change in settlement area from this point until AD 1625. From AD 1625 to AD 1700, the

Eastern Seneca settlement size increased steadily.

Site Name Dates Area (m2) Ratio Applied Population Belcher 1540-1560 11,628 12 969 Richmond Mills 1540-1560 17,001 12 1417 Adams 1575-1590 39,580 20 1979 Johnston 1575-1590 Brisbane 1590-1605 Dutch Hollow 1605-1620 47,400 20 2370 Fugle 1605-1620 11,168 20 558 Lima 1620-1640 8400 12 700 Bosley Mills 1620-1640 7284 12 607 Power House 1640-1655 16,790 20 840 Menzis 1640-1655 8094 20 405 Gandachioragou 1655-1675 46,000 20 2300 Totiakton 1675-1687 61,204 Kient-He 1675-1687 22,296 20 1115 Onaghee 1688-1710 Culbertson 1570-1585 21,845 20 1092 Alva Reed 1570-1585 17,951 20 898 Tram 1580-1595 20,820 20 1041 Cameron 1595-1610 22,078 20 1104 Factory Hollow 1610-1625 20,545 12 1712 Cornish 1625-1645 5666 12 472 Warren 1625-1645 27,170 20 1359 Steele 1645-1660 54,750 20 2738 Gandagaro 1660-1675 Wheeler Station 1660-1675 Ganondagan 1675-1687 37,349 Cherry Street/Beal 1675-1687 24,100 Kanedesaga 1690-1710 62,500 20 3125 Table 3.11: Results of site area calculations and population estimates for the Seneca sites. Western Seneca sites are on the top half of the table and the Eastern Seneca sites are on the bottom half. The population numbers are subject to +/- 10% error.

68 90000 1687 80000

70000

60000 1620 50000 1590 1675 40000

30000 1655 20000 1640 10000

0 1560 Date (AD)

Figure 3.10: Changes in Western Seneca site area over time.

70000 1700

60000 1660 1687 50000

40000 1585 1645 30000 1610 20000 1625 1595 1600 1560 10000

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.11: Changes in Eastern Seneca site area over time.

69 The results of the population estimates are displayed in Table 3.11 and Figures

3.9, 3.12, and 3.13. The overall shape of the total Seneca population curve from AD 1560 to AD 1640 has similar trends to the Mohawk and Onondaga curves. The earlier years are

marked by a sharp increase followed by a short plateau and then a large decrease.

However, the Seneca population increased again between AD 1640 and AD 1675, and

experienced a slight decrease between AD 1675 and AD 1687.

The Western Seneca population (Figure 3.12) closely mirrored the overall Seneca population. The population increased until AD 1620, decreased between AD 1620 and AD

1640, and increased after the depopulation event. This decline would be more precipitous

if the Dutch Hollow site was more densely occupied than assumed in this study. Finally, a slight decrease occurred between AD 1675 and AD 1687.

The Eastern Seneca population changes (Figure 3.13) were very different from the overall Seneca and Western Seneca changes. Eastern Seneca population decreased from

AD 1560 to AD 1585. After this date, a severe decrease in population occurred until AD

1595. After AD 1595, the population dropped slightly until AD 1600 then increased

gradually until AD 1645. From AD 1645 to AD 1660, the population increased more

steadily. Between AD 1660 and AD 1675, the population declined. From AD 1675 to AD

1687, the population did not change, and after AD 1687, the population increased.

70 3500

3000 1620

2500 1590 1675 2000 1655 1687

1500 1560 1640 1000

500

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.12: Changes in Western Seneca population over time.

3500 1700 3000 1585 1660

2500 1675 1687 2000 1595 1610 1645 1500 1625 1600 1605

1000 1560 500

0 Date (AD)

Figure 3.13: Changes in Eastern Seneca population over time.

71 Explanation of the Individual Population Trends

MOHAWK

The Mohawk demographic patterns are thoroughly discussed in Snow’s works

(1995a, 1995c, 2000) and Snow and Starna (1989), and the minor changes made here do

not alter the pattern significantly nor do they require any additional explanation. I discuss

the comparisons between the Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca patterns and the Mohawk

patterns below.

ONEIDA

The Oneida population displayed much more variability than those of the other

nations. The most significant changes occurred between AD 1600 and AD 1650 and after

AD 1650 when the population decreased approximately 50% in each period. The lowest population occurred at the Cameron site in AD 1620, and then the population quickly

recovered. This first population loss and recovery is interesting because of the short period of time over which it occurs and the time at which it occurs. It is unlikely that it is

the result of a population loss followed by natural recovery because of the short period of

time.

The most likely explanation, because of archaeological support, is an out-

migration followed by an in-migration. Snow (1994:81) noted that the

72 [m]igration of individuals and of groups both large and small was a constant feature of the Iroquois landscape. Local populations fluctuated as people came and went, and population estimates must somehow take this fluidity into account.

There is even evidence for the destination to where Oneida people migrated. Snow (1994,

1995a) suggested that some of the dramatic increases in Mohawk population in the late

sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries may have come from Oneida immigrants. He

hypothesized, based on the high frequency of Oneida pottery styles at the Failing site,

occupied AD 1615-35, that around 1500 Oneida people moved east to live with the

Mohawks and situate themselves closer to the Dutch, who were the closest direct

European trading partners. This is supported by Champlain’s account (Champlain

1907:314) that Oneidas moved to the Mohawk Valley during or after AD 1615. The

Oneida experience a dramatic decrease from AD 1600 to AD 1620. Accounting for errors

in timing, the decrease in population could have started around AD 1575 and may not

have started recovering until AD 1635. The timing suggests that immigrating Oneidas

could have contributed to the Mohawk population increase. Further, the Failing settlement was abandoned around AD 1635 and the Oneida population recovery begins

between AD 1620 and AD 1635. Oneida migrants could have been moving back to the

Oneida region toward the latter years of occupation at the settlement.

The results also conform to actual observed human migratory patterns. Initial

migrations are frequently followed by a counter-migration moving back to the place of

origin. Also, economic causes are often cited as the primary push factors encouraging a

group to migrate (Anthony 1990). The data do not, however, support the number of immigrants proposed by Snow (1994). It is possible that a few hundred Oneidas moved to

73 the Mohawk Valley, but it is unlikely that the number was as high as 1500. The total

Oneida population in AD 1600 was likely around 1500 people. A migration of 1500 people at either of these dates would have left the Oneida region almost completely

devoid of residents. The presence of the Cameron site and its 710 inhabitants at the

population nadir negates the possibility of a migration event this large. However, 800

Oneida people may have moved.

This period was marked by frequent migrations, and the addition of St. Lawrence

Iroquoians to the Mohawk population easily account for Snow’s over inflation of Oneida

immigrants. Based on population and archaeological data, the most reasonable

explanation for the AD 1600-1650 Oneida population decline and recovery is a migration

to and from the Mohawk Valley.

Although the above explanation is well supported by multiple lines of

independent evidence, a missing site cannot be ruled out as the cause of the apparent

population loss. The primary alternative explanation is that there may be misdated sites in

this sequence or a companion site to the Cameron site that has yet to be found. Given the

fact that the valleys and hillsides are heavily farmed and that archaeology has been

conducted for over 150 years in the region, it is unlikely that there are a large number of

undiscovered sites. The Oneida region is populated by a number of forested hilltops that

have seen very little agricultural activity due to the thin, rocky soils and limited flat land.

It is entirely possible that these locations could house at least one undiscovered Oneida

village site. However, these poor agricultural settings would not have been good locations

for villages, and the existence of a large number of undiscovered sites is unlikely.

74 The Oneida experienced a second depopulation event between AD 1650 and AD

1680. However, this event may have begun as early as AD 1635. This earlier date

coordinates well with archaeological and ethnohistoric information, which indicate the

Mohawk and Oneida maintained frequent contacts. This would have led to rapid

transmission of diseases between the two groups and accounts for the similar dates of

disease related depopulation among the two populations. A date in the middle of the range between AD 1635 and AD 1650 would suggest a gradual spread of disease from the

Dutch to the Mohawk to the Oneida and eventually the Onondaga. The later date would

place the depopulation at the same time as the Onondaga. Unfortunately, and unlike the

Mohawk and Onondaga, there are no ethnohistoric accounts of disease among the Oneida

to support this information. Regardless, the Oneida data do not indicate any depopulation

prior to AD 1634, which agrees with other results from the Northeast (Snow and Lanphear

1989; Snow 1995a, 1995c) and the eastern Great Lakes (Warrick 2003; Warrick 2008).

Another interesting feature of the Oneida population curve is that the maximum population may have been reached during the mid-sixteenth century, not just prior to contact. The assumption is often that Native populations reached their peak just before

European diseases began increasing mortality rates and decreasing overall populations.

However, this is a somewhat simplistic view that ignores the fact that Native populations

likely had very complex demographic histories prior to contact (Thornton 1987, 1997).

Disease, famine, migration, and warfare were all present in North America prior to

contact and could have caused losses in local populations, from which populations did

not recover fully before the advent of Europeans and their diseases.

75 ONONDAGA

As noted earlier, the Onondaga population changes are similar to those of the

Mohawk. In the mid-sixteenth century both populations increased significantly over short

periods of time. In order to make any statements about the cause of these increases, the

annual growth rate must first be determined using the equation:

rt Nt = N0e

Where Nt is the population at time t, N0 is the initial population, r is the growth rate per annum, and t is the span in year. The Mohawk annual growth rate during AD 1560-1626

was 3.2%. The Onondaga annual growth rate during AD 1570-1650 was 2.2%. Rates of

more than 2.0% per annum are considered too high for pre-modern intrinsic population

growth (Livi-Bacci 1992:21-24). Thus, these growth rates are likely not the result of

internal growth alone. Warrick (2008:150) encountered similarly high population growth

rates for Wendat-Tionontaté during the Middle Iroquoian phase (AD 1300-1420) and assumed that his estimation methods were flawed. Unlike Warrick’s (2008) interpretation, however, there is no assumption that the estimation methods used here are flawed. The best explanation for these extraordinary growth rates, and perhaps those of the Wendat-Tionontaté, is the occurrence of migration events.

Snow (1994, 2001) indicates that the Mohawk population increase during this century was very likely the result of immigrating peoples. One interesting hypothesis that has been presented several times prior to this study (Snow 1994; Engelbrecht 2003) is

76 that this may reflect the influx of Iroquoian refugees or captives from the St. Lawrence

River Valley. The last occupations in the Valley occur in the mid to late sixteenth century, and after this time, these groups disappeared from the region. Pottery at

Onondaga sites dating to this period shows St. Lawrence Iroquoian traits (Tuck 1971),

and with the large increases in population this may explain the whereabouts of the people

who abandoned those communities. Likewise, Jefferson County Iroquoian ceramics

closely resemble ceramics recovered from sixteenth century Mohawk sites (Snow

1994:76). Bradley (1987) suggested that as many as 600 St. Lawrence Iroquoians may

have been incorporated into Onondaga society. That number is in agreement with the

population increase from 500 to over 2700 found here over the time period of AD 1570-

1650. Accounting for 600 immigrants, the annual growth rate would have been 1.7%,

which is well within the acceptable range for pre-modern intrinsic population growth.

The best explanation for the unusually high annual population growth rates for the

Mohawk and Onondaga is a combination of internal growth and addition of immigrating

St. Lawrence Iroquoians.

The shape of the Onondaga population curve during the seventeenth century appears to support the conclusions presented by Snow (1994; 1995a; 1995c; 2000), Snow and Starna (1989), Snow and Lanphear (1988), and Warrick (1990; 2003; 2008) that

European diseases did not cause depopulation in the region until the mid-seventeenth century. The data show that there was no Onondaga depopulation event in the early

sixteenth century and that the first significant Iroquoian depopulation events most likely

occurred some time after direct contact with Europeans. The Haudenosaunee first came

into direct contact with Europeans in AD 1609 when Samuel de Champlain and a group of

77 Algonquians fought with a group that was most certainly Mohawk (Snow 1994:78). The

first recorded trip of any European into Onondaga territory was AD 1615 also by

Champlain (Bradley 1987:113). This may very well have been the first time an Onondaga

person saw a European person. The first evidence of Mohawk population decline appears

in AD 1633, both from archaeologically derived population data and historical documents

from the Harmen Meyndertsz van den Bogaert voyage and Jesuits (Snow and Starna

1989; Snow 1995a; Snow 1995b; van den Bogaert 1996:1-13; JR 7:87, 7:221, 8:43,

12:263-265). Similarly, the Onondaga population data presented here does not show any

evidence of decline until AD 1650. However, given the errors discussed in timing

population changes, the event could have happened as early as AD 1645. With either

result, the event was at least thirty years after first contact between the Onondaga and any

Europeans and at least twelve years after the first Mohawk depopulation event.

The first documentary evidence of disease among the Onondaga comes from AD

1656-1657, when they experienced and unidentified “great mortality” (JR 44:43). This

historical information is supported by these data, which shows a 25% decline in

population between AD 1655 and AD 1663. Also, the data here indicate that this recorded

epidemic may have been the second significant one to affect the Onondaga with the first

occurring around AD 1650. These results support the assertion made by Snow and

Lanphear (1988) that European diseases that came to North America were childhood

diseases like smallpox and did not impact Native populations until colonies were

established and children arrived in the Northeast in the AD 1630’s. Subsequently, this is further evidence against pandemic diseases caused by the initial sixteenth century contact

78 between Native Americans and Europeans along the Gulf Coast of Florida (Dobyns

1983).

The most intriguing feature of the Onondaga population curve is the timing of the depopulation event in relation to that among the Mohawk (seen in Figure 3.1). Even though geographic buffer zones existed between the Haudenosaunee nations, they had a significant amount of interaction through political negotiations. Thus, one would expect depopulation among the groups to have occurred fairly close in time as individuals came into contact with those infected with disease. The 17-year lag between the Mohawk and

Onondaga epidemics is surprising given this information. However, Onondaga and

Mohawk villages were around 160 kilometers apart at this time. If the Onondaga population curve is an accurate reflection of disease transmission then it is further support that buffer zones existing between groups in the Eastern Woodlands, even on small geographic scales, would have slowed the spread of European-introduced diseases (see

Milner et al. 2001).

There is ethnohistoric data that accounts for the delay of disease outbreak among the Onondaga, as well. Because of their proximity to Dutch trading posts along the

Hudson River, the Mohawk were engaging in the most frequent contact with Europeans of any of the Haudenosaunee cultures during the early seventeenth century. European artifacts appear at sites throughout the Haudenosaunee territory during this period (Tuck

1971:176; Pratt 1976:121-124, 126-127; Bradley 1977:2-16; Bennett 1979:4-5, 11;

Hosbach and Gibson 1980:58-62, 70-92; Vandrei 1986:77; Sempowski and Saunders

2001:57-296, 333-569, 591-665), but with no historical record of Dutch traders reaching

79 west of Mohawk territory until the 1630’s, this is likely the result down-the-line exchange

that started with the Mohawk.

This frequent contact explains why the Mohawk are the first to show evidence of

significant mortality due to disease. It may also explain why disease did not occur until

much later among more western groups like the Onondaga. The other nations did not

have the constant contact with Europeans, and it may be that they restricted contact with

Mohawks once symptoms were manifesting. The Mohawks may have also stopped many

of their normal activities because of the large number of sick individuals. There is also

evidence of tensions between the Onondagas and the Mohawks over trade with the Dutch

that may have also decreased the frequency of contact between these two nations during

this period (Bradley 1987). After AD 1645, contacts increased between Onondaga people

and French traders and missionaries (Bradley 1987). This is also the earliest date when

the depopulation event may have started. The Onondaga epidemics may have spread

from the French to the Onondaga—a completely different source than the one that caused

the Mohawk depopulation.

In addition, Ramenofsky et al. (2003) suggested that traditional views of disease

interaction with Native American populations are over-simplified. Disease effects likely were not uniform in spread or severity. The differences between the population curves generated here display this lack of uniformity that may have been a reality during the seventeenth century.

After reaching a nadir in AD 1663, the Onondaga population steadily recovered

through the end of the study period. As will be discussed for the Seneca below, the

Onondaga were offsetting population losses from disease by adopting refugees from

80 neighboring Iroquoian and non-Iroquoian cultures. Ethnohistoric evidence indicates that

this was occurring during depopulation, as 500-600 Wendat and Neutral people were

living at the Indian Castle village in AD 1656 (JR 44:41). Archaeological evidence of this practice exists at the Onondaga Indian Hill site, which was occupied from AD 1663 to AD

1682 at the beginning of the population recovery. Pottery from a section of the site has

distinctive Susquehannock styling, which is evidence for the presence of Susquehannock

refugees at the Onondaga village (A. Gregory Sohrweide, personal communication

2006). This would have been an effective method for replacing the vital roles lost to the

community during disease events.

CAYUGA

The Cayuga population information is not complete enough to generate a curve.

Knowledge is limited to a population of 1200 individuals in AD 1677. This prevents any

discussion of population changes over time, timing of disease events, and possible

explanations for those events.

SENECA

The overall Seneca curve shows similarities to the Onondaga and Mohawk curves

over the 200-year time period. There is no data for sites dating prior to AD 1560, so we

cannot be completely sure that a depopulation event did not occur in the early sixteenth

century. However, from the earliest data available in AD 1560, a significant population

81 increase is observed through the later parts of the century. The annual growth rate from

AD 1560 to AD 1585 was 3.0%. It is unlikely that this was preceded by a devastating

pandemic that destroyed upwards of 90% of the populations as some have suggested

(Dobyns 1966, 1983), but it cannot be certain without population data from earlier in the

century. Using the known data, the first decrease in population is seen between AD 1585 and AD 1610. There is missing data from this period, but the latter date has a lower population than the former. This is a very slight decrease, but displays a similar pattern to

the Oneida; the maximum Seneca population may have been reached before contact, not

at contact.

Looking at the individual curves for the Eastern and Western Seneca provides more detail than the general pattern. The Western Seneca show a steady increase from AD

1560 to AD 1620. The Eastern Seneca experience a large increase in population from AD

1560 to AD 1585, and then a large decrease from AD 1585 to AD 1595. This could point to

a significant depopulation event among the Eastern Seneca at this time, but because the

overall Seneca population was remaining fairly constant this is unlikely. Also, it is

difficult to imagine that the Eastern Seneca were experiencing a dramatic depopulation event while the Western Seneca were enjoying relative demographic prosperity.

There was probably a significant amount of migration of people between Eastern and Western Seneca communities. It may be that a number of Eastern Seneca people moved to the Western Seneca villages during a period of village relocation.

Haudenosaunee village locations, specifically those of the Seneca and Onondaga, have often been misinterpreted as discreet communities moving from village to village over a period of time. This was most likely the opposite of the actual process of village location

82 (Snow 1991). The basic autonomous unit in Haudenosaunee society was not the

community; it was the clan. These kin groups retained a considerable amount of

autonomy. As a result, members of a clan may have switched villages within a nation

when moves occurred (Bamann 1993). For all Haudenosaunee nations during the period

of AD 1500-1700, village relocation involving more than one village likely involved the

reorganization of communities. Even though most evidence points to Eastern and

Western Seneca villages relocating at different times (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:5),

community members easily could have switched residences from Eastern to Western

villages and vice versa. This could account for the Eastern Seneca depopulation event

between AD 1585 and AD 1595 without requiring an increase in mortality as an

explanation. The steady increase in Western Seneca populations over this same time

period further supports this explanation.

The primary depopulation event among the Seneca occurred between AD 1620 and AD 1640. Unfortunately, the villages at this time were occupied for 20 years, so it

cannot be said exactly when the depopulation event occurred during this 20-year period.

In addition, with the dating errors inherent in this method, it could have occurred as early

as AD 1610. However, if the Seneca reacted in a similar manner as the Mohawk and

Onondaga, who built new villages within five years of experiencing an epidemic, it may

be hypothesized that the disease event occurred around AD 1635. This hypothesis aside,

the time period of AD 1620 to AD 1640 is in agreement with the convincing chronological

evidence of European-disease-related depopulations among the Mohawk and Onondaga.

In addition, it occurred after any initial direct contact with Europeans, which occurred in

AD 1617 (Champlain 1922-36:213-226).

83 In reference to Dobyn’s (1983) claim that Seneca village movements around AD

1550 were disease related, we know that periodic village abandonments were part of the

Haudenosaunee settlement and subsistence strategy. To suggest this particular movement was the result of disease requires actual evidence of the disease, of which none exists.

Dobyns further suggests that the known characteristics of smallpox make it a virtual certainty that the Seneca experienced a pandemic between AD 1520 and AD 1524 (Dobyns

1983:314). The Seneca population data only start at AD 1560, so they are of little help in

assessing the validity of this statement. However, the Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk

populations all remain constant between AD 1500 and AD 1525 and increase immediately

afterward. I suspect that the Seneca curve will look similar when it is eventually extended

further back in time. A pandemic, by definition, would have reached the other nations as

well, but there is no evidence for it. This data supports the presence of epidemics in the

Northeast that afflicted Native American groups only after sustained contact with

Europeans.

These results also suggest that diseases started with the Mohawk and Seneca and

spread toward the center of the Confederacy over time. This is in accord with the

traditional roles of the nations in which the Mohawk and Seneca were the keepers of the

eastern and western doors, respectively, and were assigned as first contacts and protectors

of these entry points into the Confederacy.

The Seneca differ from the other Haudenosaunee nations in their post-epidemic

population trends, particularly the rapid population recovery. The Onondaga experienced

a 71% population recovery by AD 1700, but the Seneca were near pre-epidemic levels

(88% of their maximum population) within 35 years of reaching a nadir. In fact, French

84 Jesuits note in AD 1656 that the Seneca were the most populous of the Iroquois (JR

XLIV:20-1), and in AD 1677, Wentworth Greenhalgh records the Seneca warrior

population as 1000 compared to the 1150 warriors of the other four nations combined

(O’Callahan 1850-51:12). This is different from the pre-disease Haudenosaunee, among whom the Mohawk were the most populous nation (Figure 3.2).

Although some internal population growth probably occurred, there is

documentary evidence of the Seneca accepting refugee communities into their territory.

This adoption of outside populations likely accounted for most of the recovery. In AD

1649, an entire village of Wendats moved to the Seneca region to live among them (JR

LII:52-55). This community of people is represented as archaeological sites in the region and the people are counted toward the Seneca population in this study (see Appendix A for a description of the sites). This historic event is reflected in the Seneca population data. For the total Seneca and both the Eastern and Western divisions, a sharp increase in population occurred during the period of AD 1640 to AD 1660 (see Figures 3.11-3.13).

More than any of the other nations, the practice of accepting non-Haudenosaunee

refugees appears to have not only saved the Seneca from demographic collapse but also

helped them to maintain their role as a political and economic power in the region

through the seventeenth century.

OVERALL POPULATION SIZE AND CHANGE

The above results also allow for a discussion of the overall size of the individual

nations and the total Confederacy prior to and after depopulation. Although there is not

85 one time period in which every village from each nation has complete data, a pre-

depopulation number can be generated from nation estimates during the period AD 1620-

1634. Given the maximum pre-contact population sizes and taking into account the 10% error in the population sizes, the maximum Haudenosaunee population before contact was 18,300-21,900. This assumes a population of 2700 for the Cayuga. Most accounts indicate that their population was similar to that of the Onondaga (Snow 1994), so an identical value was chosen. This estimate is much smaller than the 100,000’s predicted by Dobyns (1983) but very similar to the 21,740 predicted by Snow (1994:88). It compares favorably with Warrick’s estimate of 21,500 for the Wendat in AD 1623

(Warrick 2008:221).

Nation AD 1620-1634 AD 1634-1660 Mohawk 8025 1140 Oneida 1789 392 Onondaga 2718 1140 Cayuga 2700 1100 Seneca 4830 3138 Totals 20,062 6810 Table 3.12: Population estimates for the individual nations and total Haudenosaunee Confederacy. The Cayuga numbers are assumed. Pre-disease Western and Eastern Seneca numbered 3100 and 1730, respectively. Post-disease Western and Eastern Seneca numbered 1307 and 1831, respectively.

The post-depopulation size of the Confederacy was 6150-7450. This represents a

59-72% decrease from the pre-depopulation size, with a mean of 66%. The Cayuga number was assumed to be identical to that of the Onondaga. These numbers represent strictly Haudenosaunee population changes over this period, not including populations that migrated into the region after the mid-seventeenth century. This is before any

86 migration of Catholic Mohawks to Canada or adoption of Wendat or Susquehannock

peoples by the Mohawk, Onondaga, and Seneca.

Discussion

The Haudenosaunee population trends support relatively smaller pre-contact

population sizes and later depopulation dates. First, the findings agree with predictions

presented by Snow (1994; 1995a) about the overall size of the Confederacy and that

depopulation did not occur until among any Haudenosaunee nations until the mid-

seventeenth century. In addition, the overall size of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and

the timing of European disease-related depopulation agree with similar characteristics of

Wendat population (Warrick 2003; 2008). These two confederacies had similar

subsistence and settlement characteristics and had similar interactions with early

Europeans in North America. The similarity of these results compared to previous

estimates of Iroquoian populations provide further support for smaller pre-contact

population estimates and for later and localized disease events in the eastern Great Lakes

and Northeast.

The results also support findings from other regions of the continent. Milner

(1980) found that disease effects in the southeast were highly variable between groups.

Further, Milner et al. (2001) suggested that tribal populations with lower population

densities would have had a better chance of surviving European-introduced crowd

diseases. The Haudenosaunee population data agree with both statements. The

87 depopulation rates between the nations were highly variable, and the Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca show successful population recovery during the seventeenth century.

Milner et al. (2001) also suggested that geographic and political buffer zones between Native American populations would have retarded the spread of most crowd diseases on a larger continental scale. The results of this research show that there may have been considerable chronological gaps between depopulation events for the different

Haudenosaunee nations. Similar results were found in the Southwest among Eastern

Pueblo communities during the seventeenth century (Palkovich 1985). These findings suggest that boundaries between culturally affiliated and spatially proximate groups could have impeded disease spread on a regional scale. Thus, the effect would have been even greater between politically unaffiliated and more distantly located populations.

Further similarities between the Eastern Pueblo and Haudenosaunee populations are seen in fluctuating trends around the time of contact. As a result of migrations, warfare, and social disruptions, populations at individual Eastern Pueblo communities rose and fell significantly over relatively short periods of time (Palkovich 1985). Similar demographic and sociopolitical factors may have caused the fluctuating trends among the

Oneida and Eastern Seneca. I have already presented the evidence for migration for both of these nations. Like the Eastern Pueblo example, warfare was endemic to the eastern

Great Lakes at this time. Although migration appears to be the primary factor in the fluctuating population trends of the Oneida and Eastern Seneca, future work should look for evidence of increases in the frequency of warfare or possible social disruptions.

Warrick (2008:38) refers to these patterns as sawtoothed curves, which accurately reflect short-term fluctuations in birth, death, and migration rates. These highly

88 fluctuating population trends seen in the Oneida, Eastern Seneca, and Eastern Pueblo data

are likely very good representations of how actual population change occurred in the past

among preindustrial societies. Most mathematical and theoretical models depict

preindustrial population change as a smooth curve, which blurs the actual demographic

processes at work. The Haudenosaunee and Pueblo fluctuating curves are reflecting the

impact of fertility, mortality, and migration on the overall population. Unfortunately, very little can be said about the interplay of these three processes in any of these cases and in

most archaeological cases. However, it is important that the method of estimating

population sizes from site area results in population curves that conform to existing

knowledge of preindustrial population change. This is additional evidence that these

methods accurately estimate pre-contact population sizes.

The seventeenth century population recovery among the Oneida, Onondaga, and

Seneca is similar to that seen in other regions of the continent. Among the Menominee,

Winnebago, Sauk (Sac), and Fox (Meskwaki) of the western Great Lakes, population

increase was common very shortly after depopulation episodes ended (Kay 1984). The

adoption of outside peoples has been given much of the credit for the recovery of the

Haudenosaunee nations in this research, and it has been observed among the western

Great Lakes cultures and in other areas, such as the lower Great Plains (Hickerson 1997).

However, several other factors could have also combined to create favorable situations

for population increase during the late seventeenth century. Depopulation from disease

resulted in less warfare, as there was less competition for the best resources (e.g.

agricultural land and hunting territories), and fewer people led to food surpluses, which

could be saved or traded to European settlers (Kay 1984). These beneficial situations

89 have been attributed to the population recovery in the western Great Lakes and could have impacted Haudenosaunee populations.

Thornton et al. (1991) further suggested that populations that were growing prior to experiencing depopulation would have continued to grow afterward, and that increases in fertility after depopulation would not have been uncommon. Deaths from smallpox and similar diseases concentrate the population into the age ranges with the highest fertility rates and lowest mortality rates. Thornton et al. (1991:37) show that without any further disturbances, a population with a 1% growth rate could have completely recovered from a

40% loss in population within 35 years. Even with two depopulation events 10 years apart, a population with a 1% growth rate could have recovered in 50 years (Thornton et al. 1991:37). Thus, the recovery of Haudenosaunee populations was likely the result of adoption of outsiders combined with economic and demographic circumstances that promoted increases in fertility.

This discussion has primarily focused on disease. European-introduced diseases were likely the principal killers of Native Americans after contact, but they were not the sole killers. Several other factors related and unrelated to diseases intersected to create devastating population losses after contact. During smallpox outbreaks among tribal cultures in South America during the mid-twentieth century, morbidity and mortality were increased by secondary factors, such as the collapse of village life, illness and death of nursing mothers, loss of providers, no one to care for the sick, and the tendency of the sick to flee to new villages and spread infection (Centerwall 1968; Neel 1970). These factors promoted higher death rates. Situations were likely similar to those experienced by Native American groups during the seventeenth century.

90 Large numbers of deaths also left groups vulnerable to attacks by enemies. If

disease spread occurred at various times over large regions, some groups would have

been affected while others would have escaped depopulation. This would have made it

easy for the unaffected to prey upon groups weakened by disease losses (Milner et al

2001). This situation was exacerbated among many Northern Iroquoian cultures, which

believed that almost all deaths were maliciously caused, requiring revenge and the role of

the deceased to be replaced by a captive. This further increased the frequency of warfare

in the eastern Great Lakes and Northeast (Snow 1994; Brandão 2003). In several cases,

such as the Neutral Iroquoians, the combination of disease, warfare, and economic losses

led to cultural extinction (Fitzgerald 2001). Further, many Native American deaths

occurred in European wars fought on North American soil. All of these ancillary factors

would have combined with diseases to decimate Native American populations.

The depopulation events that occurred among the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga,

and Seneca would have resulted in widespread societal and cultural change. The data

show a mean decrease of 78% of the Mohawk population over 20 years, a 48% decrease

in Oneida population over 10 years, a 58% decrease in Onondaga population over 13

years, and a 38% decrease in Seneca population over 20 years. These numbers are very

similar to general Native American depopulation rates of 30-50% (Thornton et al.

1991:33), known smallpox epidemics that killed 60% of Native Americans in AD 1781-

1782 in the Upper Great Plains (Martin 1978:131-3), and smallpox infection rates of 70% among Yanomamö people in the 1950’s (only 10% of which died because medical care was available; Joralemon 1982:117). The Seneca, Onondaga, and Oneida population declines are slightly lower than others determined for Northeastern populations, which

91 averaged 85% (Snow and Lanphear 1988:24). This lower rate is likely a result of the

post-depopulation practices that masked actual population losses.

True population losses may never be known because Haudenosaunee cultures

tended to respond to large-scale losses like this by adopting refugees and captives into

their communities. Communities taking on these refugees would reflect a population of

both the hosts and the newcomers making the depopulation event appear less severe than

it actually was.

Further, the actual loss of population during disease events is almost impossible to

determine because of the demographic complexity of any population. For example, the

Cherokee experienced three high-mortality smallpox epidemics, one of which killed 50%

of the population, between AD 1700 and AD 1800, yet their population declined only 25% over this period (Thornton et al 1991:29). As previously mentioned, several factors can act to increase a population’s fertility after these episodes. Add this to subsequent decreases in mortality and migrations, and determining the exact effects of diseases on

Native American populations is almost impossible. Population studies, such as this one, only see the overall change, not the complex demographic processes at work. As a result, the true loss of population strictly from disease is difficult to discuss.

Conclusion

To this point, archaeologists have had little idea of population trends for

Haudenosaunee groups outside of the Mohawk. This study supports the assertion that diseases did not impact Haudenosaunee groups until several years after direct contact.

92 The results also show very complex demographic histories for the Haudenosaunee nations before contact. Several authors (i.e. Milner et al. 2001 and Warrick 2008) have called for more archaeological research into regional populations to better understand

Native American population sizes, change, and distribution. The hope is that the results of this regional study can help to not only understand Iroquoian population sizes and change but those throughout the Eastern Woodlands.

This work is only the second step, after Snow’s (1995a; 1995c) and Snow and

Starna’s (1989) work, in building a detailed population history of the Haudenosaunee.

Future work focusing on the internal configuration of sites can test the applicability of the area-per-person ratios to all of the nations and refine the timing of changes on the population curve. Research into population sizes and change prior to AD 1500 will also

help us to understand the development of Haudenosaunee culture. At this time, there are

few sites that have the necessary detailed settlement data for these types of studies.

Methods need to be developed to identify the patterning of longhouse postmolds and hearth locations within sites without complete horizontal excavation, which is both time- consuming and destructive to cultural remains. Completing a multi-scalar population research project, in combination with regional population research in other areas of the continent, can greatly improve our understanding of commonalities and variability across pre-contact Native American populations, culture-specific and regional population sizes, and the effects of European-introduced diseases across space and time.

93 Chapter 4: Settlement Ecology and the Haudenosaunee

Settlement ecology is the study of why people live where they do. This is a

simplified and slightly vague definition, but settlement ecology is a broad topic. This area

of study is an outgrowth of settlement pattern research and seeks to explain the reasoning

behind the total settlement system (i.e. patterns and process). This involves complex

analysis of the interaction between settlement features (e.g. location, distribution, size,

duration, fissioning, fusioning, and movement) and cultural characteristics (e.g.

subsistence production, sociopolitical relationships, population, and ideology).

In archaeological contexts, several of the cultural variables involved in settlement

ecology research are difficult to find or measure. Thus, it can be difficult to recreate the

complete settlement system of a past culture. However, settlement features are easily

studied by archaeological research and settlement pattern analysis theory and methods are well developed. In cases of good preservation, the location, size, distribution, and movement of settlements can be found and analyzed. The difficulty results when attempting to analyze them in relation to the aforementioned cultural characteristics.

This particular research focuses on the location of Haudenosaunee settlements and environmental and cultural features that influenced these locations. This is only one part of understanding the Haudenosaunee settlement system, but the intention is that it is a solid foundation upon which to build.

Studying the relationship between settlement location and landscape features assumes that human settlement is a behavioral adaptation to the natural and cultural environments (Hasenstab 1996b; Kohler 1988). This is a reasonable assumption and one

94 that provides archaeologists with a unique perspective to study settlement ecology over

lengthy periods of time.

Anthropological research into this topic has focused its attention on hunters and

gatherers and intensive agriculturalists—the latter grew out of earlier geography research

(Chisholm 1968; Christaller 1966[1933]) and was promoted primarily by Robert Netting

(1991) and Glenn Davis Stone (1996). In his work, Stone (1996:6) notes that research into agricultural settlement ecology is so new that “it is not even clear what an agrarian settlement theory should look like”. This situation is identical to that of swidden agricultural settlement theory. Swidden agriculture is a subsistence strategy that is well documented but the associated settlement systems are not necessarily well understood.

This subsistence strategy in a temperate climate, as practiced the Haudenosaunee, has been studied even less. In short, we know a fair amount about the ecology of people practicing swidden agriculture but much less about how it relates to their settlement, which is one of the cultural remnants archaeologists can use to study large scale and long term ecological relationships.

Swidden agricultural settlement ecology cannot be studied in the same manner as that of intensive agriculturalists, nor should it be. This study is one of a few to focus on

Haudenosaunee settlement and its relationship to the surrounding landscape. Three other studies are mentioned below. Fortunately, earlier research into other subsistence strategies has shown how to build settlement ecology models and theory. Stone (1996)

laid out just such a framework when he stated that settlement ecology is to be viewed as a

system not a set of rules. Stone implies that the best method is to analyze cultures on a

case-by-case method and avoid trying to establish rules of settlement ecology. In each

95 culture, there are too many factors originating from too many varied sources to establish any rules that incorporate all populations practicing a particular subsistence system.

Research should focus on the factors influencing the settlement patterns of a particular group and the relative impact of those factors.

This study examines the influence of a number of environmental and sociopolitical factors on the location and distribution of Haudenosaunee settlements from

AD 1500 to AD 1700. Stone (1996) notes that settlement decisions can be affected by a large number of factors, which all have influences on one another as well. He envisions the process of deciding where to place settlements as a “mental balance sheet for each factor” (1996:8). The benefits and drawbacks of each factor are weighed in each decision and are affected by the circumstances at the time. Thus, in an archaeological context such as this, I am trying to determine what factors influenced settlement location in order to understand the decision-making process that led to the choice of particular locations.

This is accomplished through the use of geographic data related to all of the 125

Haudenosaunee sites that were previously analyzed for demographic trends. These data are analyzed in a GIS in relation to spatial attributes of various environmental and sociopolitical features of the landscape. The results provide measurements of the various features at each settlement location. Then, interpretations about the correlation of settlement locations and features must be made. A small number of studies have analyzed the relationship of Haudenosaunee sites to the natural environment primarily with respect to locational modeling and catchment analysis (see Bond 1985; Allen 1996). An even smaller number have investigated the combined effects of natural and sociopolitical factors, particularly warfare (see Hasenstab 1996). The results of these studies are

96 discussed below. This dissertation builds upon these latter studies and examines the effect of a wider set of natural and sociopolitical factors, including transportation and wood resources, on settlement patterns. The result is an examination of the interplay of subsistence needs, sociopolitical relationships, and human adaptation among a swidden agricultural group.

Haudenosaunee Settlement Ecology

Previous ethnohistoric research, archaeological research, and spatial analysis have revealed a suite of factors that influenced Haudenosaunee spatial arrangement of settlements. Although these studies have compiled a comprehensive list of factors influencing settlement, few have provided empirical evidence behind these relationships and even fewer have been able to distinguish the relative impact of particular variables on community settlement location choice. With this in mind, there are many natural and cultural variables to consider when studying the ecology of Haudenosaunee communities.

Haudenosaunee sites occupy a region of modern-day New York State referred to as both the rolling till plains (Engelbrecht 2003:91) and the central valleys (Hasenstab

1996a:225). This is a region of glaciated U-shaped stream valleys, rolling hills, and lakes.

As shown in Figure 4.1, to the north of the region are the Adirondack Mountains, Lake

Ontario, and the lake plains surrounding the lake. To the south are the unglaciated uplands of the Allegheny Plateau. Most agree that the rolling till plains were chosen by the swidden agricultural Haudenosaunee for their superior soil, which is better drained and deeper than in the surrounding regions (Engelbrecht 2003). For example, the Lake

97 Plains are often too wet to productively grow beans (Engelbrecht 2003:91). This analysis

will focus on the next smaller scale of analysis: the variables within the rolling till plains

that were favored by Haudenosaunee communities.

Figure 4.1: Map of the topographic zones referred to in this chapter and the distribution of Haudenosaunee village sites occupied between AD 1500 and 1700. This map is based on information from maps presented by Hasenstab (1996a:225) and Engelbrecht (2003:91).

The Haudenosaunee practiced a mixed subsistence strategy; maize, beans, and squash composed the bulk of the diet and were grown with swidden agricultural

98 techniques. These primary components of the diet were supplemented with wild foods,

from both animals and plants. Studies have shown that the closely related Wendat in

Ontario relied on maize for 65% of their diet (Heidenreich 1971:163). Analysis of

skeletal remains from Northern Iroquoian peoples dating from AD 1000-1300 show that

maize contributed about 50% of the diet (Schwarcz et al 1985; Katzenberg et al 1995). In

addition, an increase in dental caries after AD 1000 shows an increased dependence on foods high in carbohydrates (Ritchie 1965:274-275). These data make it reasonable to

assume that Haudenosaunee people were relying on maize for at least half of their dietary

needs during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Thus, producing ample maize crops

every year was an important part of life, and in order to produce sufficient yields, the

right soil and climatic conditions are necessary. As a result, soil productivity has

consistently been discussed as an important factor in Haudenosaunee settlement location

choice.

Haudenosaunee Group Yield (bu/acre) Date Source St. Regis reservation, NY, with plows 10.1 1847 Schoolcraft 1847:34 Cattaraugus reservation, NY, with plows 16.8 1847 Schoolcraft 1847:34 Buffalo reservation, NY, with plows 17.9 1847 Schoolcraft 1847:34 Allegheny reservation, NY, with plows 21.0 1847 Schoolcraft 1847:34 Tuscarora reservation, NY, with plows 23.1 1847 Schoolcraft 1847:34 Tonawanda reservation, NY, with plows 23.2 1847 Schoolcraft 1847:34 Onondaga reservation, NY, with plows 23.7 1847 Schoolcraft 1847:34 Oneida reservation, NY, with plows 24.1 1847 Schoolcraft 1847:34 Average: 20.0 Table 4.1: Recorded corn yields for historic Haudenosaunee farmers.

The term “productivity” is measured in yield per area and is dependent upon several characteristics of the soil including depth, texture, drainage, and moisture content.

99 Recorded Iroquois yields during the 1800’s with European-introduced plows averaged 20

bu/acre (Table 4.1). Given the use of this then-new technology, these yields are slightly

higher than would be expected with completely traditional techniques.

Engelbrecht (2003:30) notes, “as farmers, the Iroquois were clearly aware of soil

quality in choosing a location for both their villages and their fields”. More specifically,

Northern Flint maize, the variety grown by Northern Iroquoians, prefers moist loamy

soils that are well-drained and have high lime content (Hasenstab 1996:21, Fecteau

1991). The closely related Wendat preferred sandy loam or loamy sand soils in their

southern Ontario homeland (Heidenreich 1971:66-67). Beans grow best in limy soils and

produce the nitrogen needed by corn. Well-drained soils are also important at the

settlement location to prevent rot, allow for storage pits, and allow for easy digging

(Vandrei 1987:12-13). Snow (1995a:366, 371) has also suggested that Haudenosaunee

farmers may have planted in areas with both well-drained and poorly drained soil. In dry

years, crops located in more poorly drained soils would do better.

In addition, the Haudenosaunee were living near the northern limits of maize agriculture in North America. There are only slightly more frost-free days than are necessary for growing maize in the rolling till plains of New York. As a result, microenvironments with reduced frost action would have been beneficial to farmers growing maize. These microenvironments included hillsides and low-lying hills, which are “thermal belts” where frost action is lower. Hastenstab (1996:21) notes that many

Northern Iroquoian settlements were built in these physiographic settings.

It also would have been beneficial to place both buildings and fields on south facing slopes. At this high latitude, the sun is in the southern hemisphere of the sky

100 during every season. Crops and buildings would be kept warmer if placed on land with a southerly aspect.

The rolling till plains, as the name suggests, is highly variable with regards to slope. Not all areas of the landscape would have been suitable for living and farming. Flat or slightly graded land would have been ideal to reduce damage to crops and buildings from run-off and soil slumping. In addition, corn yields are higher on land with less than

15% slope (Kravchenko et al. 2000).

With the mixed subsistence strategy, most believe that situating communities near important wild faunal and floral resources would have factored at least somewhat into decisions on where to place settlements. Men were the primary hunters and game included deer, bears, and small mammals. Pigeon and beaver were considered delicacies

(Snow 1994:67). Wild plant resources included several species of nuts, berries, seeds, and roots. Nut trees were encouraged to grow throughout the Eastern Woodlands, and

Iroquoia was no exception (Cowan 1985:219-220). There is some evidence that black walnuts may have been planted as a semi-cultigen (Wykoff 1991). At the Cayuga Carman site, hickory and walnut remains dominated the paleoethnobotanical specimens (Allen

1998).

Building materials have also been cited as factors in choosing a settlement location. Specific tree species would have been ideal for certain purposes, and communities may have chosen to build near stands of these species. For example, the eastern white cedar is rot resistant and would have provided the best wooden posts to anchor longhouses, storage sheds, or palisade walls (Wright 1995:17). White elm, maple, and white ash would have been good for roof beams because these types of wood are

101 both strong and flexible (Snow 1997:81). Elm and cedar were used for the large sheets of

bark that covered longhouses (Engelbrecht 2003:92). Red cedar, maple, and eastern

hemlock would have been good materials for palisades because of strength and rot

resistance (Engelbrecht 2003:97). Warrick (1990) found that red cedar was by far the

most rot resistant species of wood indigenous to the region, suggesting that is might have

been highly sought after for posts. The wood for building materials was cut with hand

tools and transported by people without the aid of draft animals or the wheel. Thus,

proximity to suitable building materials has been cited as a factor in Haudenosaunee

community decisions on where to place settlements.

Other natural factors that have been mentioned as important for Haudenosaunee

settlement include proximity to stone material for tools, potable water sources, wetlands

and swamps for useful animals and plants (Engelbrecht 2003), and hardwoods for fuel

(Fecteau et al. 1991). Some archaeologists have also suggested that villages were placed

in locations that were sheltered from prevailing winds and weather and that the view from

a site influenced community decisions (see Engelbrecht 2003 for a review). The

relationship between vantage and defensibility has only been discussed briefly for the

Haudenosaunee (see Jones 2006).

Several cultural factors have also been cited as influencing Haudenosaunee

community decisions on village locations. Warfare is perhaps the most often mentioned.

Archaeological research suggests that warfare was prevalent in the eastern Great Lakes

after AD 1000 (Snow 1994; Keener 1999). During the sixteenth century and prior to

European contact, Haudenosaunee warfare consisted partially of small-scale raids involving small groups of men infiltrating villages and killing or capturing a small

102 number of individuals. This type of warfare is common among middle-range societies

(Keeley 1996). Richter (1992) has associated this type of warfare and later variations of

taking captives and torture with a type of warfare called “mourning wars”, which were

previously described in Chapter 2. Uncharacteristic of middle-range societies, the

Haudenosaunee also engaged in larger battles involving hundreds of warriors on a side.

Although these types of battles among smaller-scale societies are often characterized as

ritual in nature, ethnohistoric evidence suggests that these battles were fought for territory

and for the complete destruction of enemies among Northern Iroquoian groups (Keener

1999).

After the arrival of Europeans, it appears that these trends continued with few

changes except new technology, such as metal-edged weapons and guns. After acquiring

guns in AD 1640, Haudenosaunee warriors were first recorded assaulting and laying siege

to villages (Keener 1999) in addition to raiding for economic and ideological motives

(Brandão 1997; Richter 1992). These wars led to the defeat and dispersal of several

neighboring groups including the Wendat.

In regards to settlement location choice, most researchers agree that villages

located on high hills and restricted spits, tongues, or ridgetops were built in such

locations as a reaction to this persistent warfare. In addition, many Haudenosaunee

communities protected their settlements with wooden palisades and infrequently with

earthworks. With these defensive measures, it is possible that location did not matter as

long as physical impediments existed to keep out would-be attackers. It has also been

argued that the increase in village size throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

is a reflection of the increasing concerns with the defensibility of settlements (Snow

103 1994:67). If a village contains more warriors than an opposing group can muster, a

defensible location and defensive works may not be as important.

Included in the discussion of defensibility is the distance a site is located from

transportation routes. In this case, transportation routes are canoe navigable waterways and overland trails. A study by Hasenstab (1996a), which is discussed in more detail below, examined the relationship between village locations and waterways and found that

distance from waterways was an important factor in settlement location choice. This

added some substance to the often-held assumption that Haudenosaunee villages avoided

these specific routes of travel. There has been almost no discussion of the spatial

relationship between sites and overland trails, which is interesting because they were the primary transportation routes for Haudenosaunee people (Engelbrecht 2003). Conversely,

Northern Iroquoian cultures to the west of the Haudenosaunee relied primarily on canoe

travel for long distance transportation (Hasenstab 1996a).

Overland trails were very important to the Haudenosaunee for communication,

trade, and diplomacy. In fact, for the confederacy to operate effectively, easy

transportation between the nations was necessary (Engelbrecht 2003). The importance of

trade and communication is noted in ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts. During his

travels, van den Bogaert noted that three Oneida women traveled for six days to reach

Mohawk villages for the purpose of selling salmon and tobacco (van den Bogaert

1988[1634-5]:4; Snow et al. 1996:4). In the same account he also mentioned Mohawk fur

traders traveling to Fort Orange (van den Bogaert 1988[1634-5]:3). These are just two of

several instances of van den Bogaert and his party encountering Haudenosaunee people

104 conducting various activities on the trails between Fort Orange and the Oneida village

occupied at the time (see also Snow et al. 1996:2).

Another seldom-discussed factor is trade. Materials for decorative and utilitarian

items from all over the Eastern Woodlands are found on Haudenosaunee village sites.

Pre-contact long distance trade items found at sites include marine shell from the mid-

Atlantic coast, copper from Lake Superior, nonlocal lithics, an incised walrus dagger, and

an Oneota-style redstone disk pipe (Bradley 1987; Drooker 1997). After the arrival of

Europeans, the direction of the flow of goods changed. This is particularly apparent after

the establishment of Fort Nassau in AD 1614 and Fort Orange in AD 1624 by the Dutch.

These locations in present-day Albany were close to Mohawk settlements. Previous trade good sources were likely to the to the south and trade was accessed via the Susquehanna

River corridor (Bradley 1987:90).

We know that trade occurred, and that the Haudenosaunee traveled primarily along overland trails. However, we do not know if proximity to overland trails was a

factor in deciding where communities built their villages. Canoe navigable waterways would have been used in a secondary role as well, so they are also of interest for this

study. The known location of both types of transportation routes provides the means for

examining the spatial relationship between settlement locations and these landscape

features.

Finally, supernatural factors have also been discussed as influences in settlement

location choice. Malevolent spirits or locations of burial grounds could have influenced

communities to avoid certain locations on the landscape (Engelbrecht 2003).

Unfortunately, there is no means for testing the effect of ideological factors on past

105 settlement patterns. Further, cemeteries were built near villages, so it would be difficult to

isolate whether the cemetery or the previous settlement affected decisions not to re-settle at particular locations. Ethnohistoric and modern Haudenosaunee knowledge of such places may enlighten this topic, but it is outside the environmental and sociopolitical focus of this study.

Data Available for Settlement Ecology Research

Village site locations and archaeologically derived site dates represent the bulk of the data used in this research. These data and their sources were described in Chapter 2.

All 125 site locations used in this study were identified through previous archaeological

research projects and have UTM/latitude-longitude coordinates recorded on maps in

museums and institutions throughout the state of New York. However, some of these

institutions have conflicting locations. Contacting professional and amateur

archaeologists who previously worked at these sites and visiting the sites personally

resolved these conflicts. For 45 of the sites, I recorded latitude/longitude coordinates at

the center of each site with the GPS unit. These coordinates were then used to create shapefiles of the points in ArcGIS 9, ArcView versions 9.2 and 9.3. Archival resources and my fieldwork also provided information on site elevation and physiographic setting.

Much of the natural environmental research focuses on the spatial relationship between village locations and landscape and soil features important for agricultural success. The landscape features are slope and aspect, and they are calculated from the

DEM’s previously mentioned. The soil data for this research come from the United States

106 Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

digital general soil map. The data are digital representations of environmental features

and were created by generalizing more detailed soil survey maps and collecting geologic,

topographic, land cover, and climate data from various sources (USDA 2006). This

survey contains data on a multitude of environmental features including soil texture, soil

drainage, frost action, and ability to support hardwood tree species.

Dean Snow researched the location of historic overland trails. The locations are reconstructed from various historic accounts detailing the travels of Europeans and

Native people across Iroquoia (Dean Snow, personal communication 2007). The trail locations used in this study are just a small portion of a map that includes all of the historically documented trails across North America. I examine the trails located near the territories of the five Haudenosaunee nations

Previous Haudenosaunee Settlement Ecology Research

Three previous studies have laid the groundwork for the basic methodology of

this research. Bond (1985) analyzed a small set of late fifteenth and early sixteenth

Mohawk sites to determine the impact of soil type on settlement location. His hypothesis was that populations and individuals attempted to minimize efforts and maximize gains.

As Mohawk communities grew in size, they maximized the number of resources in the

catchment area of their settlement. This minimized the need for villages to relocate due to

the exhaustion of resources. However, Bond’s (1985) results show the opposite

relationship. The productivity of catchment areas decreased as villages increased in size.

107 Bond’s (1985) model worked well for site-soil correlations, but not for catchment analysis. Site locations correlated favorably with highly productive soils, but the same highly productive soil types did not dominate the surrounding area. His conclusion was that warfare produced stress on the Mohawk populations and changed their basic settlement pattern. According to Bond (1985), by the end of the 15th century, defense was the primary concern for communities.

Allen (1996) conducted a study of the environmental factors influencing the patterning of Iroquoian groups from AD 900 to AD 1550. This was primarily an analysis of environmental features related to agricultural needs and production. She analyzed the location of settlements in relation to the length of growing season, average temperature, and average precipitation and found that the length of growing season had the greatest impact on settlement location. There was also a correlation between settlement location and areas that receive ample rainfall and above for the growth of corn plants. However, the overwhelming majority of land in the rolling till plains region meets the minimum rainfall requirements for corn according to Allen’s (1996) maps. Allen (1996) followed up on these early results by creating a classification scheme for successful maize yield across the region. This scheme was based on the three variables mentioned above. She found a strong correlation between site locations and the three highest ranked categories in this classification scheme. Finally, she analyzed the categories and settlement locations with respect to time.

For the period of interest in this research, AD 1500-1700, she found that sites were concentrated in the second and third ranked areas. This could be interpreted as a move to more upland locations, which were more easily defended but were less beneficial for

108 agricultural production. Similar to Bond (1985), Allen’s (1996) work suggested that

defensive needs were influencing settlement locations during this time period. However, her final conclusion was that more detailed analyses need to be conducted to fully determine the relationships between settlement location and environmental features.

Hasenstab (1996a) conducted a similar, but slightly more complex, study of the factors influencing settlement locations in the Northeast. He hypothesized that the

Haudenosaunee “would have placed their villages strategically with respect to both

access to natural resources and protection from their enemies” (1996a:224). The study

focused on data related to three topics: hunting, agriculture, and canoe transport.

Hasenstab used all known sites dating from AD 1000-1687 and generated randomly

placed points with which to compare locations. The site and random locations were

overlaid with environmental layers embedded with data, and the patterns were analyzed.

He next conducted a discriminant function analysis to determine the factors that spatially separated the actual sites from random locations. The assumption was that most

influential discriminating factors were those that were most important to Haudenosaunee

communities. Hasenstab (1996a) found that the most influential variable for settlements

in the central valleys, the territory of the Haudenosaunee, was distance from drainage

divides. The second most influential variable was soil productivity. This indicated that

defense, in the sense of hiding from travelers and being removed from transportation

routes, was one of the most important needs along with agricultural production. Distance

from drainage divides and canoe navigable waters continued to be the most influential

factor in settlement placement throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

109 These studies provide excellent methodological and theoretical foundations for

further investigation of the influences behind the settlement locations of the

Haudenosaunee. All three achieved results suggesting that Haudenosaunee communities became increasingly concerned with defense throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, sometimes at the expense of agricultural needs.

This research analyzes a larger set of sociopolitical and environmental factors.

Bond’s (1985) and Allen’s (1996) studies achieved results from environmental analyses, and when hypotheses about the effects of the environment were rejected, they made inferences about possible sociopolitical factors. This research directly measures

sociopolitical factors, in addition to environmental factors, and places them in a central role in the research. This allows for discussion of the actual impacts of sociopolitical factors on settlement patterns.

Hasenstab (1996a) analyzed environmental and a single sociopolitical factor with methods similar to this research. He highlighted several possible shortcomings of his research, and the lack of accounting for changes over time is one of the most significant. I study a much shorter time period in an attempt to reduce any effect that changes over the period may have had on the settlement patterns.

Methodological Considerations

VIEWSHED ANALYSIS

110 This research employs viewshed analysis in addition to the analysis of other

variables to assess the defensibility of Haudenosaunee villages. Viewshed analysis is

conducted in a GIS to determine the visible areas on a landscape from a specific point

(O’Sullivan and Unwin 2003). This method of analysis is becoming increasingly

common in archaeological research of this topic in addition to questions concerning economic control, political territories, and sacred and ritual landscapes (Renfrew 1979;

Fraser, 1983; Kvamme 1993; Wheatley 1995; Lock and Harris 1996; Maschner 1996;

Llobera 2003). Research commonly focuses on the concepts of field-of-view and line-of- sight (Wheatley and Gillings 2002). Field-of-view represents the total visible area from a point on the landscape and line-of-sight refers to visibility between two points. Despite the increasing popularity of the method, there are concerns with its representativeness

and accuracy that must be addressed.

In reality, the viewer could scan the surrounding countryside from any point

within a village area. In a varied topographic landscape like that of the eastern Great

Lakes and Northeast, this is an important consideration. Given this information, the most

accurate viewshed would come from a cumulative viewshed using every point within a

village boundary (see Connolly and Lake 2006:227 for a discussion of different viewshed

types). Using fewer points increases the chance of under-representing the field-of-view

and missing cases of intervisibility. However, using every point requires significant

processing power, is extremely time consuming, and is usually reserved for instances

when viewshed analysis is the sole focus of the research. It is not in this research.

Previous research into viewshed analysis and Haudenosaunee settlement patterns

employed binary viewsheds, which use a single viewpoint (Jones 2006). This is adequate

111 but flawed for the reason addressed above especially when examining intervisibility between locations. In this research, I employed cumulative viewsheds generated from three points within the village area. Although this does not provide the most accurate viewshed, it is an acceptable representation especially when considering the large scale of analysis. While conducting fieldwork, I also recorded visible topographic and human- constructed landmarks from each of the 45 sites. This allows for a qualitative comparison of the actual viewshed compared to the GIS version. The conclusion is that the GIS viewsheds are correct in assessing the direction in which the most dominant view exists and the overall visual command of the landscape from a village site. Errors are likely to occur as they do with any computer-based modeling, but at the current scale of analysis the three-point cumulative viewsheds provide adequate resolution and accuracy.

In addition, to the number of viewpoints, different viewer heights and errors in the

DEM have been known to cause misrepresentations of visible areas (Connolly and Lake

2006). I generated every viewshed from the same viewer height of 1 m and used National

Elevation Dataset (NED) DEMs, which are reliable sources of elevation data. These are surface based models and are not as accurate as the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

(SRTM) maps. However, the SRTM maps can be problematic because of no-data areas associated with high-slope landforms.

Questions have arisen not just about representativeness of viewshed analysis but also about its accuracy in accounting for the layout of ancient landscapes. For example, the configuration of cultural and natural features must always be addressed in any viewshed analysis. Unfortunately, there has been no workable solution for estimating what the forest cover would have looked like in the past and how it would have

112 obstructed views (Connolly and Lake 2006). It is difficult to determine what types of

trees were growing and where. However, this research is aided by the pattern of

Haudenosaunee agricultural field placement. Multiple ethnohistoric sources note that

large deforested areas, some as large as 20 miles in diameter, often surrounded villages

(Day 1953:338). That is an extreme case and possibly the result of communities moving

just outside the catchment of the old village to build a new settlement. This would create large clearings as a result of two or more village clearings being combined. Others, such as the French Jesuit René Bréhant de Galinée, recorded a clearing of approximately five- and-a-half miles around a Seneca site in the mid-seventeenth century (Hammell 1980:95).

Furthermore, taking into account that most of the villages were on hilltops, the trees nearest to a village would have been at a distance and at a lower elevation. Both characteristics would have increased visibility from a settlement. However, individuals moving through the existing forests still would have been concealed during months with foliage on the trees. Village clearings would have helped to see other clearings, waterways, cleared areas during summer and early fall months when foliage was on the trees, and all areas during the late fall, winter, and spring months when trees were bare.

Thus, these clearings would not have always been beneficial, but they would have helped in several circumstances. As a result, this research assumes that the viewshed is a reasonable estimate of the visible area from inside the boundary of any given village.

Problems of autocorrelation, spurious correlation, edge effects, and DEM errors

(Wheatley and Gillings 2002) all have a technical impact on viewshed analysis. In addition, substantive issues like tree cover, contrast of visible objects, acuity of vision, and representativeness of the paleoenvironment (Conolly and Lake 2006) also affect

113 results. Thus, it is important to recognize that viewshed analysis is one particular

technique for assessing how past peoples viewed their surrounding landscape. It has its

flaws, but if used correctly and with supplemental measures, as it is here, it can provide a

reasonable assessment of the connection between visibility and cultural features like settlement defensibility.

SOIL PRODUCTIVITY

This research analyzes the spatial correlation of village locations and best soil for

maize production. The primary variables examined for this analysis are the slope and

aspect of the terrain and the texture of the soil. As mentioned, corn favors loamy soils.

Thus, site locations are examined in relation to the distribution of loamy soils. Aspect is

important for several reasons. At more northern latitudes, crops on southerly facing

slopes receive more solar radiation. In addition, this is a very hilly landscape. Research

has shown that corn yields are highest on more level ground (Kravchenko et al. 2000).

Thus, land with slope less than 15% was determined to be the best land for growing

maize.

WILD RESOURCE USE

In this research, most of the measurements of environmental variables are those

related to agricultural needs. As mentioned, at least 50% of the Haudenosaunee diet was

derived from wild resources. Hasenstab (1996a) attempted to measure the impact of wild

114 food resources on settlement patterns by using forest diversity as a proxy for wild resource potential. However, it is not clear how effective this measure is in modeling past resource distribution.

Similar to reconstructing past forest cover, it is difficult to accurately reconstruct

sixteenth and seventeenth century wild resource zones and the flora and fauna that would have been productive in them. For example, marshes were important resource zones for wild plants and animals. However, the spatial distribution of marshes has been altered significantly over the last four centuries of Euro-American agricultural and settlement activities. The distribution of wetlands across the eastern Great Lakes and Northeast looked very different than it does today. Locations could be assumed from areas of very poorly drained soil and modern marsh locations. This would provide some indication of the relationship between settlement location and wetlands. However, this dissertation focuses on agricultural potential and will leave this analysis for future research.

Environmental modification would have attracted many will animal and plant species, including deer, elk, raspberry, and strawberry, used by Haudenosaunee people

(Engelbrecht 2003). During the contact period, Haudenosaunee people often burned forests and grasslands for the purpose of attracting these species (see Engelbrecht 2003:9 for a summary of historic resources on this topic). There has been discussion of determining the location and extent of these human-constructed grasslands through phytolith analysis (Wykoff 1988), but data is not sufficient enough for any spatial correlation between them and village locations.

Further, it appears that Haudenosaunee people were bringing the wild resources to them through environmental modification, suggesting that the ranges of most wild

115 resources were not factors considered when choosing a settlement location. Hunting usually took place at hunting camps removed significant distances from villages

(Engelbrecht 2003). Unlike their Wendat neighbors to the north, who primarily hunted in areas close to villages (Trigger 1990), it does not appear to be an activity that was necessarily restricted to village locations or adjacent lands.

In this research, I examine the spatial relationship between settlements and the distribution of hardwood growth. Hardwoods like oak, walnut, and chestnut would have provided nuts as well as material for tools, buildings, and fuel. There are other plants that were used for food and medicine not accounted for in this research. There is little doubt that the inclusion of all utilized wild plant resources would improve the descriptive power of this research if it were possible to measure them, but the use of hardwood resources and the fact that a majority of foraging was not restricted to village locations means that very few wild resources are omitted from the analysis.

CATCHMENT SIZE AND SHAPE

I defined village catchment areas as all land extending two kilometers in every direction from the borders of a settlement. Two kilometers was chosen based on ethnographic information and energetic studies that have shown this distance to have been the maximum people would have traveled with a load of maize, firewood, or building supplies (Fecteau et al 1991:5). I assumed that this was the maximum distance that fields would have been located from the village and that farmers would have been well aware of the soil quality in these areas.

116 Relying on Schroeder’s (1999) assessment of maize yields from traditional

farming methods, a catchment with a 2 km radius would have provided ample land for

active and fallow garden plots as well as areas for wild food and wood procurement. She

calculated that maize yields using traditional methods with no use of animal fertilizers

would have yielded 10 bushels of edible maize per acre in one harvest (Schroeder

1999:511). This accounts for harvest lost to spoilage and seed set aside for the next year’s

crop. This figure is also in accordance with recorded Haudenosaunee yields from the

eighteenth century (Figure 4.1). As previously mentioned, evidence from the skeletal

remains of Iroquoian peoples who lived from AD 1000-1300 show that maize contributed

about 50% of the diet (Schwarcz et al 1985, Katzenberg et al 1995). Schroeder estimated

that the average family relying on maize for 55% of their diet would require .95 hectares of garden to support them for a year. However, this garden size per family is much larger than the average non-plowed Native American garden plot size of .24 hectares

(Schroeder 1999:510). With multiple reports supporting the figures of a diet half composed of maize, we are led to conclude that the amount of land per Haudenosaunee family would have been much larger than this smaller average.

A village of 3,000 individuals, which represents the largest village population sizes presented in the previous chapter, would have contained around 600 families. This assumes an average family size of five, which is the widely accepted figure (Snow and

Starna 1989). This number of families would have required 570 hectares of active garden plots. A circular catchment area with a radius of two kilometers would have an area of

1256 ha. Therefore, even the largest of Haudenosaunee villages would use only 45% of the land available in their catchment for active agricultural plots. This is reasonable

117 considering that some land would have been fallow and other land would have been used for gathering wild plant resources and collected wood necessary for heating and cooking.

Thus, assigning a catchment area with a two-kilometer radius to every village should sufficiently include all of the land and associated resources that were being considered by

Haudenosaunee communities when searching for potential village locations.

For this research, village catchment areas are assumed to be generally circular areas, their boundaries extending two kilometers in every direction from the boundary of a village. Fecteau et al (1991) suggested that Wendat village catchments were D-shaped with the village located at one extreme side of the area. This conclusion was based on the arrangement of archaeological sites, the assumption that catchment areas between successive villages did not overlap, and the assumption that people would want to be as close to forests and their resources as they were to their agricultural fields. However, they were concerned primarily with agricultural catchments and considered wood resources outside the catchment. My research includes agricultural and wood resources in the catchment area. Under this definition, the Fecteau et al. (1991) catchment would have been circular. This study follows the more inclusive definition, and the catchments encircle the village and extend to a distance of two kilometers in every direction.

118 Chapter 5: Factors Influencing Haudenosaunee Settlement Locations

Following the results of the studies by Bond (1985), Allen (1996), and Hasenstab

(1996a), defense should be a significant influence on the location of settlements occupied

from AD 1500 to AD 1700. Although this study will analyze defensibility of settlements

with an eye toward previous results, the interpretation of the results will follow the

settlement ecology approach laid forth by Stone (1996). This approach was introduced

following the previous studies of Haudenosaunee settlement location, and thus, not

available at that time. In this research, the factors influencing settlement will be examined

and discussed not as competing factors but as a total system of interacting pushes and

pulls that influenced Haudenosaunee communities. As a result, the discussion will not

focus on ordering primary, secondary, or tertiary factors in determining settlement

locations. It will focus on the landscape features that correlate with Haudenosaunee

settlements and how these correlations can tell us about the factors influencing settlement

and how these factors interacted with one another and community needs to create the

observed pattern.

Methods

Bond (1985), Allen (1996), and Hasenstab (1996a) analyzed the spatial correlation of Iroquoian village locations with various environmental features and one

particular sociopolitical feature, canoe navigable waterways. This research builds on

those results by analyzing a larger set of natural and cultural features. Features added

119 include viewsheds, field-of-view, line-of-sight, wood resources, slope, aspect, soil drainage, and overland transportation routes. This research also analyzes a set of sites that were occupied over a shorter time period. This is an attempt to further build an understanding of the Haudenosaunee settlement ecology system and reduce the unintended effects of change over time on the results (Hasenstab 1996a).

This portion of the study analyzes the 125 sites occupied between AD 1500 and

AD 1700 as one group. I did not separate them by occupation date because of the

relatively brief study period and the fact that sample sizes for any sub-divisions of time would have been too small to produce meaningful results. Furthermore, the shifting swidden agricultural system was firmly in place by the beginning of the period, and major changes to subsistence and settlement resulting from the introduction of European technology did not occur until after AD 1700. Features of the landscape relating to

agricultural subsistence, wood resource procurement, defensibility, transportation, and

building requirements are all examined in relation to the Haudenosaunee settlement

pattern. Specifically, these features are:

1. Agricultural requirements: slope within settlement catchment, average aspect

within settlement catchment, soil texture at site, distance to loamy soil,

qualitative measure of soil drainage, and qualitative measure of frost action.

2. Wood resources: soil potential for hardwood tree growth.

3. Defensibility: viewsheds (field-of-view and line-of-sight), elevation, and

physiographic location

4. Transportation: distance to canoe navigable waterways and overland trails.

120 5. Building requirements: average slope within settlement area and soil drainage

at settlement locations.

The intersection of village locations and these landscape features are analyzed to determine spatial correlations that may reveal influences on Haudenosaunee settlement patterns. In order to test the significance of any potential correlations, random points are created and analyzed similar to the actual village locations.

The first step in this research was to create a database of site information to which the spatial data could be added. I gathered site locations through archival research and

verified 45 site locations during the mapping fieldwork. At these 45 sites, I recorded

latitude and longitude coordinates with the Thales MobileMapper CE GPS unit at the

approximate center of each site. Elevation measurements were also taken with the GPS

unit. For the sites not mapped in the field, elevations came from existing site files at the

RMSC and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation

(OPRHP) and USGS topographic maps with ten-foot contour intervals from the New

York State GIS data clearinghouse. Again, the elevation came from the approximate

center of each site. The database also included the settlement and abandonment dates of

each site, the village size as measured in the population study, and the resulting

population estimate.

In order to create random points, I had to first create an arbitrary territory for each

nation. I created these territories by drawing a rectangle that encompassed every village

site from each individual nation. The only exception was for the Mohawk. The Van der

Werken site is a recently discovered village site and is an extreme spatial outlier, as

shown in Figure 5.1. Because of the site’s location, the area around the Van der Werken

121 site was not included in the Mohawk territory. The use of this area when creating random points would have included an area non-representative of the region in which the overwhelming majority of Mohawk village sites reside. More specifically, it would have included areas with different soils, physiography, and elevation ranges, among other variables measured here, not present around most Mohawk villages.

Figure 5.1: The spatial distribution of Mohawk settlements and the limits of the Mohawk settlement territory, as defined for this research.

122 Using the CreateRandomPoints tool in the ArcMap command prompt, the same

number of random points as the number of village sites for each individual nation was

created within the culture regions. For every landscape feature correlation recorded for

the village locations, I also recorded the same information for the random points. I

gathered elevation data for these points using the spatial analyst zonal statistics tool in

ArcMap and the elevation data embedded in the DEMs.

These points represented expected results given a completely random distribution

of settlements. I recorded deviations in the village sites from the random points with

respect to particular features as over- or under-representations. I then assumed that these

results indicate features that influenced Haudenosaunee settlement patterns, either

positively or negatively. Thus, throughout the results and discussion, the term “expected

values” is in reference to what we would expect given a completely random distribution

across a particular nation’s territory (i.e. the locations of the random points).

Typically, most spatial analyses begin with a first order statistical analysis of the entire sample across the study area. This type of analysis identifies whether there is a spatial pattern or not (Fortin and Dale 2005). However, the clustered distribution of late pre-contact Haudenosaunee sites, shown in Figure 5.2, is well documented. There is a clear non-random patterning of village sites occupied between AD 1500 and AD 1700.

Thus, the spatial analyses in this dissertation began at second order statistics. These

analyses are conducted to measure local spatial patterns in the data (Fortin and Dale

2005). In this research, these analyses are conducted at two separate scales, for the entire

set of 125 Haudenosaunee settlements and for each individual nation.

123

Figure 5.2: Spatial distribution of Haudenosaunee settlements occupied between AD 1500 and 1700. This and all maps in this chapter were produced with the North American Datum 1983 and in the North American Albers Equal Area Projection.

I conducted all analyses with the North American Equal Albers Conical projection and the North American Datum 1983. This projection is the preferred projection for the USDA NRCS data, which contributed a significant portion of the raw data for this research. The first of these analyses was the examination of village viewsheds. This requires the use of DEMs and their imbedded elevation data. I employed

National Elevation Dataset (NED) two-arc second DEMs; these models have 60-meter resolution. I used a lower resolution because of the large scale of this research. This work

124 analyzed the characteristics of viewsheds over distances on the scale of kilometers, so accuracy of terrain variability over short distances was not required and has the potential to add unnecessary noise to the results. As with any data in large-scale analyses, some of the detail is lost, but the overall pattern is better represented.

I generated viewsheds in ArcMap using the spatial analyst tool. Output cell size was 60 meters, or a single DEM cell, viewer height was set at 1 m above surface level, and the curvature of the earth was taken into account. As explained in the previous chapter, I generated cumulative viewsheds from three points from within each site. I then placed one viewpoint near the center of each site and placed the other two viewpoints at random locations near the site boundary, as defined for the demographic study. I followed this by overlaying these three individual viewsheds to create one cumulative viewshed.

I measured four features of each village location’s viewshed: 1) spatial extent of the viewshed; 2) intervisibility between contemporaneous and successor sites; 3) direction and distance of unbroken lines-of-sight; and 4) percentage of land visible within

500, 1000, and 1500 meters of each village site. All of this data can be found in

Appendices B and C. ArcMap records the number of DEM cells covered by a viewshed. I converted this count into hectares with the following relationship:

1 grid = 60 m x 60 m = 3600 m2 = .36 ha

125 The intersection of the cumulative viewsheds and any portion of another village area

defined intervisibility (Figure 5.3). In cases where visibility was unidirectional, I assumed intervisibility.

I measured unbroken lines-of-site by creating buffers using the Proximity Tool in the ArcMap Toolbox at 500, 1000, and 1500 meters from each site boundary. These are arbitrary distances. As seen in Figure 5.4, I divided the area around each site into four quadrants, and I analyzed the viewsheds in comparison to these buffers to determine where, if any, gaps in visible range existed. I defined gaps by a total break in the viewshed of more than one cell’s width, and the furthest distance that the viewshed extended in any direction without a gap was recorded.

The estimation of the amount of visible land within each 500-meter incremented buffer provided another assessment of field-of-view. I categorized the amount of visible land within each buffer as 0-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, or 75-100%. An example is shown in Figure 5.5. I kept the categories broad because any exact measurements would have been unreliable given the discrepancies between actual visible areas and GIS-generated viewsheds discussed in the previous chapter. Further, I created viewsheds for the random points and compared the average size of these viewsheds to the average of the largest single viewshed from each of the actual sites. I did not use the cumulative viewsheds in the comparison because it is not equitable to compare the combination of viewsheds from

three points to a binary viewshed from a single point.

126

Figure 5.3: Portions of the viewsheds of the Onondaga Temperance House and Atwell village sites. The blue viewshed is from the Atwell site; the yellow is from the Temperance house site. The viewsheds overlap the site areas indicating visibility between the two locations.

127

Figure 5.4: The Seneca Kanedesaga (White Springs) village site and a portion of its viewshed. This shows a 500-meter buffer from the extent of settlement and the division of that buffer into quadrants for determining in what directions line-of-sight exists. The same analysis was conducted for 1000- and 1500-meter buffers.

128

Figure 5.5: The Seneca Kanedesaga (White Springs) village site and portions of its viewshed. The 500-meter buffer shown here was used to roughly estimate the amount of visible area within it. The same analysis was conducted for 1000- and 1500-meter buffers.

129 As another measure of settlement defensibility, I examined the physiographic

location of each site. Based on personal observation and topographic maps, sites were

categorized as either easily accessible or having restricted access. Having restricted

access was defined by having over 50% of the site boundary bordered by impassible

slopes. Accessible sites were those where impassible natural features bordered less than

50% of the boundary. Research into past archaeological research and ethnohistoric

sources revealed which sites contained evidence of a palisade around any portion of the

village boundary. The ethnohistoric accounts include descriptions by several European missionaries, soldiers, and merchants of Haudenosaunee villages and their physical layout. These descriptions were examined for any mention of palisades or walls around

the villages used in this study.

The next analysis was the examination of the spatial correlation of village

locations and soil features related to agricultural productivity. For this, I used the village locations, random points, and USDA NRCS soil maps. For each village location, the average slope of the land within the settlement boundary, the majority slope class within the catchment, the average aspect within the catchment, and the distance to loamy soil was recorded.

For the measurement of slope within the catchment, the most prevalent class of land was recorded. The slope of the region was classified into four categories: 0-4%, 4-

8%, 8-15%, and over 15%. The working assumption was that Haudenosaunee farmers would not have cultivated on land over 15% slope. Then, for each settlement, the category that contributed the most land to the catchment was recorded (Figure 5.6).

130

Figure 5.6: Slope classes in a portion of the Oneida region.

131

Figure 5.7: Aspect in a portion of the Western Seneca region.

132 The aspect of the land within the catchment was recorded as an average numerical value. ArcGIS calculates aspect numerically and associates a direction with a range of values (e.g. South = 158-203). Using the zonal statistics spatial analyst tool, the aspect of all DEM grid cells within the catchment were recorded and averaged to produce one value for each site (Figure 5.7).

Finally, I recorded the soil texture at the site location and the distance to the nearest loamy soil (Figure 5.8). Soil texture information was provided in the USDA

NRCS maps. These measurements were duplicated for all random sites.

Figure 5.8: Example of spatial correlation of settlement locations with soil features. The maps are soil texture, left, and hardwood growth, right. The Onondaga Atwell, Sheldon, Chase, Dwyer, and Pompey Center village sites are displayed. The soil feature at the settlement location and the distance to the nearest highest category of soil were recorded.

133 I also measured the qualitative hardwood growth potential at settlement locations

(Figure 5.8). As mentioned in the previous chapter, hardwood tree species would have

been important for building materials, food resources, and fuel. The USDA NRCS soil

survey classified the soil based into four qualitative categories: good, fair, poor, and very

poor. I assigned these categories numerical values from 4 (good) to 1 (very poor). As

shown in Figure 5.6, the potential for hardwood growth at the site was measured along

with the distance to the nearest patch of good hardwood growth soil. The same observations were made for the random points. Finally, I measured the percentage of good hardwood soil within two kilometers of each village site.

Figure 5.9: Example of spatial correlation of settlement locations with soil features. The maps are frost action, left, and soil drainage, right. The Onondaga Atwell, Sheldon, Chase, Dwyer, and Pompey Center village sites are displayed. The soil feature at the settlement location and the distance to the nearest highest category of soil were recorded.

134 I also examined the qualitative amount of soil drainage at settlement locations.

The USDA survey classifies soil by four qualitative descriptions: well drained,

moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, and poorly drained. As shown in

Figure 5.9, the type of soil under the site location was recorded in addition to the distance

from the site to the nearest patch (defined by an area at least one hectare in size) of well-

drained soil. If the settlement was located on well-drained soil, I recorded a distance of

zero. I also recorded the percentage of each soil type within a two-kilometer radius.

Every soil type was recorded because although corn grows best in well-drained soil, there

are advantages to having a mixture of soil types around a site. In dry years, more poorly drained soil will be more productive; in wet years, well-drained soil will be more

productive (Snow 1995a:366,371; Engelbrecht 2003:30).

I recorded the frost action class (e.g. low or moderate) at each settlement location

(Figure 5.9). The USDA soil survey classified lands as having either low, moderate, or

high frost action. Across the rolling till plains, there is very little low frost action. In fact, none of the regions contained low frost action. I recorded the type of frost action at the site location in addition to the distance to the nearest patch of moderate frost action. This is rough measure of the growing season length. Similar to the soil drainage measurements, I recorded the frost action potential at the site location and the distance to the nearest patch of moderate frost action land (area greater than 1 ha). I also used the same buffer at two kilometers, overlaid it with the data on frost action, and measured the

percentage of moderate frost action land in comparison to the total area within the

catchment.

135

Figure 5.10: Canoe navigable waterways located closest to the Haudenosaunee village locations. Limestone Creek and West Branch Creek are not labeled and are located between Onondaga Lake and Cazenovia Lake.

I next measured the straight-line distance from villages to canoe navigable waterways. Distances were measured from site boundaries to the nearest canoe navigable lake, river, or stream. Navigability was defined by personal qualitative observations of rivers, streams, and lakes across the region. Major navigable waterways were the

Mohawk River in the Mohawk region, Oneida Creek and Oneida Lake in the Oneida region, the lower drainage of Limestone and West Branch Creeks, Onondaga Lake, and

Cazenovia Lake in the Onondaga region, Cayuga Lake, Owasco Lake, and the Seneca

136 River in the Cayuga region, and Honeoye Creek, Mud Creek, Hemlock Lake, Conesus

Lake, Canandaigua Lake and Seneca Lake in the Seneca region (Figure 5.10).

Figure 5.11: Straight-line distance between the Seneca Menzis village site and the nearest canoe navigable waterway.

I measured the distance from the village boundary to the nearest body of water listed above using the measure tool in ArcMap (Figure 5.11). I recorded measurements for all Haudenosaunee village sites and all random points. I then calculated the average

137 for both datasets and conducted a t-test to determine if significant differences existed between the two datasets.

Figure 5.12: Straight-line distance between the Seneca Menzis village site and the nearest overland trail.

In the same manner, I recorded the straight-line distance from each site to the nearest overland trail (Figure 5.12). These were the primary transportation routes for

138 Haudenosaunee travelers, and like the canoe navigable waterways, these travel routes could have been used for many purposes. This procedure was repeated for the random points.

The last spatial measurement was the average slope within strictly the settlement area (i.e. the area within the palisade or village extent). I recorded this to determine if there was a preference for certain topography upon which to build. Slope was calculated from the DEM data using the surface analysis tools in ArMap. The average was calculated with the zonal statistics tool.

Finally, I conducted a discriminant function analysis of all variables measured for the villages and random points. Discriminant function analysis is a statistical measure of the variables that most differentiate two or more groups of individuals. In this case there are two groups, villages and random points. In situations with only two groups, discriminant function analysis works in the same manner as multiple regression analysis.

The group assignments are the dependent variable, and the measured variables are the independent variables. In such cases, multiple regression and discriminant function analysis are computationally identical (Sokal and Rohlf 1995:679-80).

The result is a regression coefficient for each of the variables, and the variables with the largest coefficients are those that most differentiate the two groups (Sokal and

Rohlf 1995:679). In this study, the study group was split into villages and random points and 15 variables were analyzed using the DISCRIMINANT function in the Statistical

Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). I analyzed the data on two scales: the entire sample of Haudenosaunee village sites and the random points and each individual nation and the respective random points.

139 Results

Table 5.1 shows the results of the discriminant function analysis for all villages

and random points. Of the fifteen variables analyzed, distance to overland trails most

distinguishes the Haudenosaunee villages from the randomly generated points. The

positive value indicates that the settlements had lower distance to trail measurements, and thus were closer to these features than were the random points. The next most distinguishing variable is the distance to well-drained soil. Again, the positive value indicates that the Haudenosaunee sites were closer to these features than the random points. The third most distinguishing variable is distance to loamy soil. The negative value indicates that the settlements were further from these soils than the random points.

The negative value of the soil drainage at location variable indicates that more settlements are located in well-drained soils compared to the random points.

Table 5.2 displays a summary of the two most influential factors in distinguishing

each of the nation’s village from their respective random points. This table is based on

the results of discriminant function analyses conducted for each of the individual nations.

The full results are presented in Appendix D. Slope is the only variable that is prevalent

across the nations, as it is a highly distinguishing factor for four of the five nations.

140 Variable Function Distance to overland trail 0.350 Distance to well-drained soil 0.327 Distance to loamy soil -0.326 Soil drainage at site location -0.323 Frost action at site location 0.318 Distance to medium frost action 0.244 Hardwood growth at site location -0.215 Majority slope class in catchment 0.180 Largest viewshed size 0.180 Distance to hardwood growth 0.163 Slope at site location -0.143 Elevation 0.097 Distance to navigable waterway -0.036 Average aspect in catchment -0.004 n=233 Table 5.1: Results of the discriminant function analysis run for all villages and random points. The largest numerical value of the function represents the variable that most differentiates the two datasets.

Nation Factors Function Mohawk Majority slope class in catchment 0.822 n=74 Average slope at location -0.198 Oneida Elevation -0.303 n=40 Average slope at location 0.269 Onondaga Distance to hardwood growth 0.423 n=42 Average aspect in site catchment 0.402 Cayuga Soil drainage at site location 0.331 n=33 Average slope at location 0.302 Seneca Distance to overland trails 0.574 n=58 Average slope at location -0.440 Table 5.2: Summary of the results of the discriminant function analysis run for each individual nation and their respective random points.

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC LANDSCAPE FEATURES

The average viewshed sizes for the village sites and random points are shown in

Table 5.3. The average Mohawk viewshed size was much smaller than the average viewshed size of the random points generated in the Mohawk region. The average Oneida

141 and Onondaga viewsheds were also smaller than the random points in their respective regions. The Onondaga viewsheds were only slightly smaller and, thus, were generally the size we would expect if the sites were randomly distributed across the landscape. The average Cayuga village viewshed was significantly smaller than the average viewshed size for the random points in the same region. For all Seneca sites, the average Seneca viewshed was larger than the average viewshed size from the random sites. When the

Seneca sites are split into the Eastern and Western divisions, the results show that the

Eastern Seneca sites were generally located in locations with much larger fields-of-view.

Viewshed size (ha)

Nation Observed Expected Mohawk 22,722 41,522

Oneida 12,585 21,954

Onondaga 13,277 14,637

Cayuga 58,281 235,786

Seneca 106,282 76,918

192,386 Eastern 14,027 Western Table 5.3: Average viewshed size for Haudenosaunee villages and random points generated within each nation’s region. The Haudenosaunee numbers are the average of the largest binary viewshed.

I also analyzed the line-of-site between contemporaneous and successor sites. The term “successor sites” in this case refers to sites occupied immediately following the site of interest. I summarize these data in Table 5.4. For the Mohawk, 34 of the 37 sites were

142 occupied at the same time as at least one other site. The majority of these groupings had at least one case of intervisibility, but it was not universal. In addition, only 10% of the

10 groups had more than one case of intervisibility, and no groups had total intervisibility between all of constituent sites. Most villages could not see a successor site.

Mohawk Oneida Onondaga Cayuga Seneca Western Eastern Seneca Sites (of grouped sites) that can see a 41% 50% 50% 44% 20% 56% contemporaneous site

Sites that can see a 35% 40% 33% 17% 0% 20% successive site Site groupings with at least one case of 70% 33% 60% 50% 20% 50% intervisibility Site groupings with at least two cases of 10% 33% 60% 50% 20% 50% intervisibility Site groupings with at 0% 17% 40% 33% 20% 25% complete intervisibility Table 5.4: Summary of the line-of-site statistics for the Haudenosaunee village sites.

For the Oneida, 12 of the 20 sites were occupied at the same time as at least one other site. Half of these sites could see a contemporaneous village and 40% could see a successor village. Groups with intervisible sites were in the minority, and only one of six groups had complete intervisibility.

For the Onondaga sites, 12 of 21 villages were occupied at the same time as at least one other village. Six of these sites could see a contemporaneous village, and four

143 could see a successor site. A majority of the five groups could see at least two

contemporaneous sites, but groups in which all sites are intervisible were in the minority.

For the Cayuga, 16 of 18 settlements were occupied at the same time as at least

one other settlement. Almost half of the Cayuga sites could see a contemporaneous site, but very few see any successor sites. Three of the six groups had at least two cases of intervisibility, but very few had complete intervisibility.

The Seneca villages were analyzed as separate Western and Eastern groups here because of the long distance between the seventeenth century settlements occupied by each group (approximately 20 km). Failing to take this into account would skew the results toward fewer cases of intervisibility. For the Western Seneca, ten villages were occupied with at least one other village. Very few of those could see one another. There were no villages with views of successor sites. The Eastern Seneca had nine sites occupied at the same time as at least one other. This group also had the highest percentage of villages that can see a contemporaneous settlement. However, very few successor settlements could be seen.

Table 5.5 summarizes the field-of-view statistics. Each nation had a high percentage of settlements with unbroken lines of visibility in all directions out to 500 m.

The percentages decreased significantly out to 1000 m, and none of the villages in the study had unbroken lines of visibility in all directions out to 1500 m. The Mohawk and the Oneida had the lowest percentage of villages with unbroken lines of visibility out to

500 m, and the Oneida and Onondaga did not have any settlements with unobstructed visibility beyond 500 m. The number of villages in each nation that could see over 50% of land within 500 m was highly variable. The highest percentage is seen among the

144 Eastern Seneca and the lowest among the Mohawk. The percentages decreased

significantly out to 1000 m and again out to 1500 m.

Mohawk Mohawk Oneida Onondaga Cayuga Western Seneca Eastern Seneca Total Seneca

Sites with unbroken 65% 65% 76% 94% 79% 73% 76% visibility in all directions to 500m Sites with unbroken visibility in all 3% 0% 0% 6% 7% 13% 10% directions to 1000m

Sites with unbroken 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% visibility in all directions to 1500m Sites that can see over 50% of land within 11% 15% 38% 44% 43% 53% 48% 500m

Sites that can see over 5% 10% 14% 11% 7% 33% 21% 50% of land within 1000m

Sites that can see over 0% 0% 0% 6% 7% 20% 14% 50% of land within 1500m Table 5.5: Summary of field-of-view statistics for Haudenosaunee sites.

Further, there does not appear to be any correlation between field-of-view and

time except among the Mohawk, where four of five sites that can see over 50% of land within 500 m were occupied before AD 1635. However, the trend does not extend out to

1000 m or 1500 m. The Mohawk, Oneida, and Onondaga did not have any sites that

could see at least 50% of the land within 1500 m of the village boundary. In particular,

very few of the Mohawk and Oneida villages could see a majority of land immediately

145 surrounding the sites at any distance. The Eastern Seneca had the highest percentage of settlements with good visibility at all three distances.

The final variables examined for site defensibility were the physiographic location

of each site and the presence of defensive palisades, which is spatially independent. I

summarize these data in Table 5.6. Approximately 30% of all Haudenosaunee villages

were built in a location with restricted access due to landform features. The Mohawk,

Oneida, and Onondaga were the three nations whose percentages were greater than the average percentage. The Cayuga percentage was slightly less, and the Seneca groups had the lowest percentages of villages in restricted physiographic locations.

Mohawk Oneida Onondaga Cayuga Seneca Western Eastern Seneca Total Seneca

% of sites with 30% 55% 43% 100% 29% 27% 28% palisades

% of sites in 35% 55% 43% 22% 14% 13% 14% restricted locations Table 5.6: Summary of the physiographic setting of villages and archaeologically identified palisades (where sufficient excavations have taken place).

I calculated the percentages of sites with palisades reported in Table 5.6 by dividing the number of sites where palisade remains have been found by the number of sites where organized archaeological excavations have taken place. Sample sizes are very influential in these results and must be considered in any discussion. For example, only

146 three Cayuga settlements, Indian Fort Road, Klinko, and Locke Fort, had identified palisade remains. However, they are the only three sites that have been the focus of organized settlement archaeology. This sample size is too small to use the results in any discussion of the tendencies of Cayuga communities to build defenses. For the other nations, 17 of 39 Mohawk villages, 18 of 21 Onondaga sites, 14 of 20 Oneida sites, and

12 of 29 Seneca village sites were the objects of sufficient settlement research to find palisade remains. Of the 62 extensively excavated sites, 42 (68%) contained evidence of at least a portion of a defensive palisade. There is no correlation between presence of palisade and any particular time period during the 200-year study period.

The results of the spatial analysis of slope show that the random points have lower average slopes at site locations (Figure 5.7). The Onondaga were the only nation that had a lower average slope for this measurement compared to the associated random points.

The Mohawk, Cayuga, and Seneca had identical or almost identical percentages of less- than-15% slope land within their catchment compared to the random points. The Oneida and Onondaga had much higher percentages than the random points.

The results of the aspect analysis (Figure 5.7) show that all settlements and random points had average catchment aspects facing in southerly directions. The

Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca settlement catchments were very similar to those of the random points. All four average aspects were in the same direction. The

Oneida catchment aspect averaged a value that is South, while the random points average a value in the Southeast.

147 Seneca Oneida Oneida Cayuga Cayuga Random Random Random Random Random Random Random Random (Seneca) (Seneca) (Oneida) (Oneida) Mohawk Mohawk (Cayuga) (Cayuga) Onondaga Onondaga (Mohawk) (Mohawk) (Onondaga)

Average slope 13.0 11.8 13.9 8.2 9.2 14.2 6.7 3.1 5.0 3.5 at site location

Sites with majority of <15% slope 81% 84% 75% 60% 95% 76% 94% 94% 97% 97% land within catchment

Average aspect within 169.0 177.3 191.9 157.3 159.7 185.6 187.2 171.6 180.5 188.6 site catchment

Figure 5.7: Results of spatial analyses of slope and aspect. The ranges of relevant aspect values are: Southeast,112-158; South, 158-203; and Southwest, 203-248.

The spatial correlation with soil texture types (Figure 5.8) shows a considerable amount of similarity between the settlements and random points. The dominant soil texture types for the dataset are loams. The distances to loamy soils were very similar for the Oneida, Onondaga, and Cayuga. The Mohawk and Seneca settlements that were not located in loamy soils were considerably further from the soil type than the random points.

148 Mohawk Random (Mohawk) Oneida Random (Oneida) Onondaga Random (Onondaga) Cayuga Random (Cayuga) Seneca Random (Seneca)

Loamy Dominant Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine over soil texture loam loam loam loam loam loam loam loam loam skeletal

Average distance to 49.1 5.4 22.5 41.0 0.0 0.0 88.9 100.0 256.9 29.9 loamy soil (m) Figure 5.8: Results of the spatial analysis of settlement and random point locations with soil textures. Distance to loamy soil was determined by measuring the distance from the settlement/random point location to the nearest area of loamy soil with an area greater than 1 ha. These values were then averaged individually for the set of settlements and random points.

Table 5.9 summarizes the results of the analysis of the spatial correlation of

Haudenosaunee villages and random points with drainage of the different soil types in the

region. As previously mentioned, well-drained soil is favored by maize and has benefits

for building and storage. The Mohawk, Onondaga, and Cayuga were located closer to

well-drained soil on average. The Oneida and Seneca were slightly further from well-

drained soil than the random points, but the values are very similar. These two nations

had more sites located in well-drained soil compared to the random points, so it appears

that the small number of settlements that were not in well-drained soil were located far

from it.

149 Mohawk Random (Mohawk) Oneida Random (Oneida) Onondaga Random (Onondaga) Cayuga Random (Cayuga) Seneca (Seneca) Random Well- 57% 57% 57% 57% 78% 78% 55% 55% 55% 55% drained soil in the region

Sites 82% 71% 55% 30% 86% 71% 89% 61% 48% 38% located in E:40% well- W:64% drained soil Average 166.2 407.0 415.8 363.5 36.0 75.7 101.1 987.8 450.7 441.0 distance from well- drained soil Figure 5.9: Percentage of sites located in well-drained soil, and the distance between sites and well-drained soil. The Seneca percentages are presented together and separately as the Eastern (E) and Western (W) groups.

The number of Mohawk villages in well-drained soil was higher than expected given the amount of that soil type in the Mohawk region, and the percentage of sites located in well-drained soil was also higher than the percentage of random points in the same soil type. Table 5.10 displays the results of the analysis of the composition of soil drainage types within two kilometers of each village location. A large majority of

Mohawk settlements had a high percentage of well-drained soil within their catchment area. About half of the settlements had a mixture of two types of soil drainage, well drained and somewhat poorly drained. Only the Bauder settlement had more than two soil drainage types, and only the Otstungo settlement had any poorly drained soil within two kilometers.

150 Among the Oneida, the number of villages located in well-drained soil was slightly lower than expected levels given the amount of this soil type in the region.

However, there were many more Oneida villages in well-drained soil than random points.

Seven of the twenty villages were located in somewhat poorly drained soils. There was also a dichotomy between villages located in well-drained and somewhat poorly drained soils. One village was located in moderately well drained soil.

Mohawk Mohawk Oneida Onondaga Cayuga Seneca Western Eastern Seneca

% of sites with > 80% well drained 73% 10% 67% 67% 36% 7% soil within 2km

% of sites with a mixture of two soil 49% 85% 43% 22% 71% 67% types within 2km

% of sites with a mixture of 3 soil 3% 10% 5% 0% 14% 7% types within 2km

Table 5.10: Summary statistics of soil drainage types within two kilometers of Haudenosaunee villages. A mixture is defined as a 90%/10% ratio or smaller.

The data in Table 5.10 indicates that most Oneida villages had a mixture of drainage types. Only one village, Primes Hill, had only one type of soil within two kilometers, and only a small number of settlements had catchment areas dominated by well-drained soil. A majority of the settlements had a mixture of soil types surrounding them. Of the villages with two soil types surrounding them, twelve had a mixture of well

151 drained and somewhat poorly drained. Four villages had a predominant mixture of

moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained soil. One village had a mixture of

well and moderately drained soil. For those with a mixture of three soil types, two

settlements had a mixture of well, moderately, and somewhat poorly drained soil. None had poorly drained soil within two kilometers.

The number of Onondaga villages located in well-drained soil was higher than

expected. Table 5.9 shows that the percentage of Onondaga villages in well-drained soil

was higher than both the percentage of well-drained soil in the Onondaga region and the percentage of random sites in well-drained soil. The villages that were not located in well-drained soil were in moderately well drained soil. The same was true for the random points. Two-thirds of Onondaga villages had well drained soil composing 80% or more of the land within two kilometers. Most villages had a mixture of well-drained and

moderately well-drained soil within two kilometers. Five of twenty-one settlements had

only one type of soil. For each of these five villages, that one type of soil was well-

drained. Twelve settlements had more than 90% well-drained within two kilometers. One

village, Weston, had three types of soil in its surrounding area. Two settlements had

somewhat poorly drained soil within two kilometers. No villages had poorly drained soil

within two kilometers of their boundaries.

A much higher number of Cayuga villages than expected were located in well- drained soil (Table 5.9). In fact, only one village, Locke Fort, was not in well-drained soil. It was located in moderately well-drained soil. In addition, the Cayuga villages had a large amount of well-drained soil within two kilometers. For 12 of 18 settlements, 100% of the land within this distance was well-drained soil (Table 5.10). For 15 of 18 sites,

152 100% of the land within two kilometers was moderately well drained or well drained. No villages had poorly drained soil within two kilometers. Only one village, Weir, had somewhat poorly drained soil within two kilometers. Only four villages had a mixture of at least two types of soil drainage, and no villages have three or more types of soil surrounding them.

The Seneca had a lower than expected number of villages in well-drained soils

(Table 5.9). The percentage was both lower than the percentage of well-drained soil in the region and the percentage of random points in well drained soil. Dividing the sites up into the Eastern and Western groups shows that the Eastern Seneca had a much lower percentage of sites in well-drained soil than expected. The Western Seneca had a much higher percentage. A minority of Seneca sites had over 80% well drained soil within two kilometers (Table 5.10). Most of the villages that did have this feature were Western

Seneca. Only one Eastern village, Ganondagan, had over 80% well drained soil within two kilometers. Most Seneca villages had a mix of well-drained and somewhat poorly drained soils within two kilometers. Only six villages had only one type of soil. There was a mixture of well-drained and somewhat poorly drained soil at 19 out of 29 settlements. No villages had poorly drained soil, and only five had moderately well drained soil within two kilometers.

Table 5.11 summarizes the relationship between the village and random point locations and moderate frost action land. As mentioned, the USDA NRCS survey categorized land in the region as low, moderate, or high frost action. No nation’s region contained areas of low frost action. The only settlement near this type of land was the aforementioned outlying Mohawk Van der Werken site. Each nation except the Seneca

153 was located, on average, closer to moderate frost action soil than their associated random

points.

Seneca Oneida Oneida Cayuga Cayuga Random Random Random Random Random Random Random (Seneca) (Seneca) Mohawk Mohawk (Oneida) (Cayuga) (Cayuga) Onondaga Onondaga (Mohawk) (Mohawk) (Onondaga) Land with 64% 64% 65% 65% 98% 98% 80% 80% 74% 74% moderate frost action in the region Sites 87% 78% 65% 35% 100% 100% 94% 78% 55% 67% located in E:40% moderate W:71% frost action Average 131.4 158.6 129.0 284.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 433.3 395.5 293.4 distance to moderate frost action Table 5.11: Percentage of village sites located in areas of moderate frost action and the distance to nearest frost action. The Seneca data are also reported together and separately for the Eastern and Western groups.

The percentage of Mohawk villages in moderate frost action was much higher

than the percentage of moderate frost action land in the Mohawk region and slightly

higher than the percentage of random points in moderate frost action. Table 5.12 shows the summary of the percentage of moderate frost action land surrounding Mohawk

villages. Every village had some moderate frost action land in the vicinity. However, it

was not a dominant feature of Mohawk settlements to have more than 80% moderate

frost action land within two kilometers.

154 The percentage of Oneida villages located in moderate frost action was identical

to the percentage of that land type in the Oneida region. However, it was much higher

than the number of random points in moderate frost action. In addition, more villages

were located in moderate frost action than are random points. Only two villages had the

surrounding area completely filled by moderate frost action land. Every settlement had at

least 20% moderate frost action land surrounding it, but very few had more than 80%.

Ninety-eight percent of the land in the Onondaga region is moderate frost action,

so it is not unexpected that every Onondaga site was located in moderate frost action.

Similarly, every random point is also located in moderate frost action. Almost all villages

had a predominance of moderate frost action land within two kilometers. For 19 of 21

settlements, 100% of the land was moderate frost action. The other two villages were at

60% and 90%.

The Cayuga villages had a similar pattern as their Onondaga counterparts.

However, there is less moderate frost action land in the Cayuga region. Eighty percent of the region is moderate frost action, but ninety-four percent of the Cayuga villages were

located on this land type. This is also higher than the percentage of random sites in moderate frost action. Fifteen of eighteen villages were completely surrounded by moderate frost action land out to two kilometers (Table 5.12). Excluding the St. Rene village, every village had at least 40% moderate frost action land surrounding it.

155 Seneca Seneca Oneida Oneida Eastern Cayuga Cayuga Western Western Mohawk Mohawk Onondaga

Sites where all soil within 2 km is 32% 10% 90% 83% 21% 0% moderate frost action

Sites where > 80% of soil within 2km is 46% 15% 95% 83% 43% 7% moderate

Sites where > 60% of soil within 2km is 51% 45% 100% 83% 71% 47% moderate

Sites where > 40% of soil within 2km is 59% 80% 100% 94% 100% 60% moderate

Sites where > 20% of soil within 2km is 70% 100% 100% 94% 100% 73% moderate Table 5.12: Summary of village sites and the amount of moderate frost action land within two kilometers of their boundaries.

The overall Seneca pattern was slightly below expected values, but dividing the culture into the Eastern and Western groups shows that the Western villages were above expected values and the Eastern villages were below. The percentage of Seneca villages placed in moderate frost action was less than the percentage of moderate frost action in the region and below the number of random points on the same land type. Table 5.11 shows that the percentage of Eastern Seneca villages was well below expected values and the percentage of Western Seneca villages was slightly below that of the amount of land in the region but slightly above the percentage of random points. For 23 of 29 sites, more than 40% of the land within two kilometers was moderate frost action (Table 5.12). For 4

156 of 29 sites, less than 10% of land within two kilometers was moderate frost action. All

four of these villages belong to the Eastern Seneca. Every Western Seneca village had at

least 40% moderate frost action land surrounding it, and over 70% of them had 60%

moderate frost action in the surrounding lands.

Table 5.13 displays the results of the observations of the spatial correlation of

village locations and random points with areas of good hardwood growth. Every nation except the Mohawk was at or above expected values for the percentage of villages located in areas of good hardwood growth. The Seneca show the most significant difference between observed and expected. Contrary to trends in other features, the

Eastern Seneca show a higher correlation with good hardwood growth than do the

Western Seneca. Every nation except the Seneca had a percentage of sites within one

kilometer of good hardwood growth at or above expected levels. The Seneca are only

three percentage points below the expected value. For the percentage of villages within

two kilometers of good hardwood growth, only the Mohawk are lower than expected

values, and the difference is very slight. On average, the Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca are

closer to good hardwood growth than the random points. The Mohawk and Oneida are

further from this soil type compared to the random points.

157

Seneca Oneida Oneida Cayuga Cayuga Random Random Random Random Random Random Random Random (Seneca) (Seneca) Mohawk Mohawk (Oneida) (Cayuga) (Cayuga) Onondaga Onondaga (Mohawk) (Mohawk) (Onondaga) Good hardwood 58% 58% 85% 85% 91% 91% 68% 68% 55% 55% growth land in region

Sites located in 43% 54% 90% 100% 100% 95% 78% 50% 97% 86% good hardwood E:100% growth W:93%

Average 479.1 324.1 26.5 0.0 0.0 227.6 207.8 402.5 34.5 82.4 distance from good hardwood growth

Table 5.13: Percentages of village sites located in areas of good hardwood growth, and the average distance between sites and good hardwood growth. The USDA NRCS 2006 soil survey designated areas as good, fair, poor, or very poor based on their ability to support hardwood tree species. No sites were located in or near very poor areas, and only the Mohawk had sites located in or near poor areas. The Seneca data are also reported separately for the Eastern and Western groups.

Table 5.14 displays the results of the average measurements of villages and random points from navigable waterways. The Mohawk, Oneida, and Onondaga had smaller averages than do their associated random points. In general, the Oneida and

Onondaga villages were at distances from waterways expected given a random distribution. The Cayuga and Seneca had larger average distances from waterways than their random point counterparts. When the Seneca are divided, the Western Seneca average distance was 3671 meters and the Eastern Seneca average was 2583 meters.

Table 5.14 also shows the results of the average measurements taken from villages and random points to the nearest overland trails. Similar to the navigable waterways, the Mohawk, Oneida, and Onondaga have a smaller average distance from

158 the nearest trail than do the associated random points. The Onondaga villages were closer

to overland trails than the random points. For the Cayuga and Seneca, the average

distance is larger than for the respective random points. The Seneca distances were

significantly different from the random point distances. The average Eastern Seneca

distance was 2967 meters, and the average Western Seneca distance was 1387 meters.

Seneca Oneida Oneida Cayuga Cayuga Random Random Mohawk Mohawk Onondaga Onondaga (Onondaga) Random (Seneca) (Seneca) Random Random (Oneida) (Oneida) Random Random (Cayuga) (Cayuga) Random

(Mohawk) Random

Average distance from navigable 2,178 3,619 4,495 5,040 4,031 4,686 6,044 4,266 3,109 2,944 waterway (m)

Average distance from overland 2,022 2,268 6,161 6,854 4,109 7,538 5,938 5,578 2,150 3,939 trail

Table 5.14: Summary statistics of village and random point distances from navigable waterways and overland trails.

Discussion

The results of the discriminant function analysis show that agricultural needs such

as well-drained soil and frost action heavily influenced the overall distribution of known

Haudenosaunee settlements. The most distinguishing factor, however, was the distance to overland trails, and the settlements were closer than the random points. Subsequently, the results of this study do not support the hypothesis presented separately by Bond (1985),

159 Allen (1996), and Hastenstab (1996a) that communities were increasing defensive measures at the expense of subsistence during the late pre-contact and contact periods. It is more accurate to describe the Haudenosaunee settlement pattern as a result of the confluence of transportation/communication needs, agricultural needs, and defensive needs.

Each nation does appear to be taking defensive measures, but the most common form of defense for all nations was through the spatially independent method of palisade construction. The Oneida and Onondaga villages did gravitate toward inaccessible physiographic locations, and the Mohawk and Western Seneca villages were built in concealed areas of the landscape. However, this did not have detrimental effects on the soil quality at these villages. Only the Cayuga appear to have moved away from transportation routes, but they were clearly not sacrificing soil quality as they were doing so. In fact, their settlement patterns appear to be influenced by soil productivity more than any other nation. Every nation except the Seneca preferred at least two of the measures of agricultural productivity, and the Seneca were not avoiding transportation routes. These smaller scale results also do not support the hypothesis that the

Haudenosaunee defense was the primary influence on settlement locations during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The nations were all meeting defensive needs through different means, and population size did not influence the defensibility of settlements. The smaller Oneida and

Onondaga were the only nations with multiple defensive techniques. However, they are clearly not sacrificing agricultural productivity. Furthermore, the Mohawk may have been taking more defensive measures than the other nations, and they were the largest in terms

160 of population. They have much smaller viewsheds than the random points, which may be an attempt to conceal villages, and Mohawk settlements have more sloped ground within

their catchment than the random points. They may have been sacrificing flat ground for

locations that were more concealed. The Seneca were located close to overland trails and

the only defensive measures that were common were the use of palisades and the

concealed Western Seneca villages. Further, the Western Seneca were near mixtures of soil drainage types and moderate frost action. These features are both related to higher

agricultural potential. Thus, the results actually support the opposite conclusion, that the

Seneca were more concerned with agricultural production than defensibility. However, these results are not convincing enough to make this conclusion, nor should the results be thought of in this either/or manner.

In regards to the relationship between settlement location, defense, and subsistence, it is important to remember the mixed subsistence strategy of the

Haudenosaunee nations. By placing villages far away from navigable waterways, the

Cayuga were protecting themselves from attacks by enemies traveling along these routes but adding to the energy inputs required for transportation to and from fishing areas. With a mixed subsistence strategy, there is no reason to think that the Cayuga were not flexible in weighing multiple natural and cultural factors and choosing the subsistence activities that best meshed with the needs of defense, transportation, and feeding the population.

This situation may have led to increased reliance on agricultural production at the cost of the procurement of certain wild food resources. Further, the proportion of agricultural versus wild foods may have changed at each different location as communities weighed

161 other cultural factors and adjusted accordingly. The flexibility of the subsistence system must be taken into account.

When viewed individually, there is not one landscape feature, natural or cultural, that is found to exert influence on every nation. Slope influences the settlement of the

Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, and Seneca. However, the influence is negative (i.e. settlements are on more sloped ground than random points) for the Mohawk and Seneca and positive for the Oneida and Cayuga. This variation may be explained by the fact that each of the nations had varying population densities and lived in slightly different environmental settings. The aforementioned example of the Mohawk relying more heavily on hunting than the other nations is another example of this variability. Even slight differences in subsistence would require different needs from the natural environment. Different population sizes and available topography affect decisions about defense. This variability in environment and population would then be reflected in settlement patterns.

The one feature that came closest to being universally significant was moderate frost action. Every nation except the Mohawk was at least moderately influenced by the distribution of moderate frost action land (Appendix D contains the total discriminant function analyses for each nation). This is similar to Allen’s (1996) finding that length of growing season was the most significant determiner of site location for sites occupied during AD 900-1550. The Onondaga were not over-represented in this type of land like the other nations, but as discussed, every site was located in an area of moderate frost action and surrounded by a large amount of this land. Although not part of the original hypotheses, this trend is not surprising. The Haudenosaunee were living near the northern

162 boundaries of maize agriculture. Late spring and early fall frosts could have had devastating effects on harvest yields. This is seen for the more northern-located Wendats, who were said to have experienced a crop failure rate of almost 50% (O’Shea 1989).

Hasenstab (1996b) noted that Northern Iroquoian villages were generally located in

“thermal belts” on low hills and hillsides, which provided a small number of additional frost-free days every year. This pattern appears to have continued through the contact period and among most of the Haudenosaunee settlements.

When viewed on a regional scale that includes all Haudenosaunee villages occupied between AD 1500 and AD 1700, the distance to overland trails was the feature that most distinguished the village locations from the random points. This indicates that transportation may have been a significant factor in settlement location choices and shows that the Haudenosaunee were placing themselves near overland transportation routes. This is a feature that was previously unexplored. Hasenstab (1996a) investigated water transportation routes, but only as travel conduits for enemies of the Haudenosaunee and how they may have avoided these locations for defensive reasons. His analysis did not investigate Haudenosaunee modes of transportation.

Before exploring the cultural implications of this finding, the effects of autocorrelation on this result must be discussed. Unlike many of the other features in this analysis, overland trails are not natural features; they are human-constructed. The spatial correlation of settlements and overland trails can be the result of settlements being built close to trails or trails being built close to settlements. Therefore, trail location may not have played a roll in settlement location decisions at all because trails were shifted to accommodate newly constructed villages. However, this does not negate the correlation

163 between the two. The fact that these features pull the Haudenosaunee sites from the expected random pattern more so than any other feature in the discriminant function analysis calls for an explanation.

It is highly probable that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, which maintained peace between the nations and provided protection from outside enemies, was in place at the beginning of this period or shortly thereafter (Engelbrecht 1985). The Confederacy was more than a political entity. It served important social, economic, and ideological functions within Haudenosaunee culture. In order to ensure the maintenance of this confederacy, easy communication (i.e. travel of people on foot) between groups would have been very important. “Keeping the road clear between us” was an oft-used diplomatic phrase during this period (Engelbrecht 2003:139). Travel through climax forests with underbrush and fallen trees can be slow and energetically costly (Miller

1994), and these trails would have provided clear avenues for communication.

These overland trails would have also been the primary means for traveling outside of the Confederacy. This would have been important for diplomacy, trade, and warfare. Pre-contact trade was largely based on reciprocal exchange, not a desire for material wealth. The emphasis in the Northeast and eastern Great Lakes appears to have been on symbolically charged items such as marine shell, native copper, and exotic lithics

(Bradley 1987:89). Evidence indicates that trade networks in these regions were extensive, but the quantity of material moving through them was relatively small (Trigger

1976:168-175; Fitzgerald 1982:289-91). The volume increased after the arrival of

European materials, and the trade networks changed in shape and direction (Bradley

1987). We know the Haudenosaunee were likely obtaining shell and other materials from

164 as far away as Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf Coast during the sixteenth century (see

Engelbrecht 2003:137-139). After the arrival of European goods, the Haudenosaunee were major players in the fur trade. Regardless of the mode of exchange, these routes would have been essential for those engaging in trade to meet with neighboring groups,

European traders, and any other exchange partners.

Several accounts indicate that some of the trade items acquired by the

Haudenosaunee were obtained by raiding the trading parties of neighboring groups

(Brandão 1997). This also would have been facilitated by easily traveled overland trails.

The advantage of convenient transportation routes for making war cannot be overlooked either (Keeley 1996). During the early seventeenth century, Haudenosaunee warriors were ranging into southern Ontario, northern Pennsylvania, and western New England.

After depopulation removed many of their traditional enemies in the mid-seventeenth century, warriors were known to venture as far as present-day Illinois and North

Carolina. These trails would have provided the means for long distance travel.

Several landscape features associated with agricultural concerns also influenced the location of Haudenosaunee sites. Distance to well-drained soil was the second-most distinguishing variable. As previously mentioned, maize prefers well-drained soil and communities were building their settlements close to patches of this soil type. Distance to patches of moderate frost action land and the frost action at the site location were also significant influences on settlement location. As mentioned above, this is not surprising given the geographic location of the Haudenosaunee, ethnohistoric data from the Wendat, and previous studies that have also found this to be an important influence on settlement location.

165 Although proximity to overland trails was the most distinguishing feature in the discriminant function analysis, it is important to recognize that agricultural factors were

very important. In fact, this research does not rule out that they were not the most

important factors. This discrepancy could result from how the “best” soil types are

categorized scientifically and traditionally. Snow (personal communication 2008) has

suggested that the lack of strict correlation between village locations and the best soil

types for agriculture may be a reflection of the methods Mohawk people used to

determine soil types. Forest cover and the plant species growing in an area were likely

used to determine the type of soil on a plot of land. This is not a foolproof method and

could have led to some villages being constructed in less-than-ideal agricultural locations.

In his study of the Yanomamö, Chagnon (1992:63) notes that the hunters were the

individuals who usually discover locations for future settlements and garden sites. The

first consideration is that the land is not covered with low, thorny brush, which is difficult

to clear. Thus, even if the soil conditions are perfect in a particular area, there are

mitigating factors that can prevent a community from choosing that location. Again, this

situation is unrecognizable archaeologically and could draw settlement patterns away

from the ideal, as defined here, soil patches. Chagnon (1992) also mentions light tree cover, well-drained soil, and convenient drinking water.

In addition, the differences could be an artifact of the measurement methods used in settlement ecology studies such as this. There are significant differences between determining soil quality from wild species growing in it and determining quality from measuring actual soil properties. Although the ranges of these desired species ultimate depend on many of the same soil characteristics that were measured here, they represent

166 indirect measure of soil quality. Observing soil properties is a direct measure. As a result,

variation between the results of the two methods is bound to occur because of the

differences in variables observed and measured.

Additionally, ethnographic research has shown that traditional soil classification

schemes are usually based on surface characteristics. Modern ‘scientific’ classifications

are based on three-dimensional qualities of the soil (Wilhusen and Stone 1990). The

shifting agricultural system also does not allow farmers to gain complex knowledge of a

specific location. Although, the soils within each of the national regions do not vary

greatly, this could account for some differences between perceived ideal soils and what

soil type was actually settled on or near.

Lastly, soil fertility was not the only variable in determining the success of a

harvest. Planting density and the input of labor were just two of many factors that also

influence harvest yields (Wilhusen and Stone 1990). Although I am assuming factors like

planting density and labor input remained constant across time and space, soil recognition

techniques by farmers could easily have accounted for some of the discrepancies found in

these results. Traditional Haudenosaunee soil classification schemes were likely effective

identifying desirable soils, but they were would not have been infallible. There may have

been situations when Haudenosaunee farmers recognized the right floral cover or soil

characteristics, but the soil was not as productive for one reason or another. It is possible

that this situation explains some of the non-correlation. However, it is unlikely that these

misidentifications occurred frequently and consistently over a 200-year period. As a result, I consider these results meaningful and able to direct discussions of land preference.

167 Features associated with building village structures were also important in the location of villages. Having well-drained soil at the village location was one of these factors. This could have been related to agricultural concerns and the desire to have well- drained soil for crops near the village. However, it also could have been a conscious decision to build in areas where buildings and underground food stores were less likely to rot.

The results of this research show that discussion of a general Haudenosaunee settlement ecology must include the significant influence of transportation, soil properties related to agricultural needs, defensive concerns, and wood resources on settlement locations and distribution. The significant influence from transportation routes would not be a surprising result for complex societies that have economies dependent upon exchange networks or have urban populations fed by surrounding areas, or even middle- range societies like Ancestral Pueblo, who were engaged in long distance exchange.

However, the historic Haudenosaunee were a tribal culture without any of these characteristics. On the other hand, the need to maintain political affiliations with one another in a relatively hostile environment offer the best explanation for the settlement pattern centered on overland transportation routes. The decision to build the confederacy around efficient means of transportation may have been one of the primary reasons for the seventeenth century success of the Haudenosaunee Confederation compared to many of their neighbors and their success in holding back European expansion longer than most

Native American cultures.

168 Conclusion

In the conclusions to his study, Hasenstab (1996a) points out possible shortcomings in the data and methods. Although I used similar techniques, I have made every attempt to improve upon these deficiencies. The first is that the discriminant function results do not necessarily indicate what was important to the communities studied. This, unfortunately, is one of the questions that must arise in any archaeological study, regardless of methods. Are our methods actually studying past behavior or simply the patterning of artifacts and features? The detailed examination of the observed and expected spatial distributions in this research adds another level of analysis that supports the discriminant function analysis. In addition, many of the results agree with historic accounts of Haudenosaunee settlement ecology. The key to furthering our knowledge on this subject is the use of multiple lines of independent evidence.

Second, the effects of autocorrelation on the results are unknown. A good example is the spatial correlation between Haudenosaunee settlements and overland trails. Were the settlements built near the trails, or were the trails built near the settlements? At this time, we cannot be sure. However, the simple proximity of these features indicates that transportation or communication were important to

Haudenosaunee communities, regardless of the answer to the question. Thus, the results are of value and worth a detailed look.

Finally, Hasenstab (1996a) questioned the ability to control space and time in his research. I used a much shorter time period for my research in an attempt to reduce the effect of time, which was an unanalyzed variable.

169 As mentioned, Stone (1996) cautioned that the settlement ecology of a given culture should be viewed as a system and not as a set of rules. The results of these analyses indicate a set of the factors that influenced Haudenosaunee settlement location and possible weights of those factors. It is important not to view the results of the discriminant function analysis as a ranking of the most to least important factors influencing the location of settlements. The decision of where to settle by Haudenosaunee communities likely involved a lengthy process of weighing all of these factors together along with several that were not analyzed. For example, Chisholm (1968) has stated that drinking water is perhaps the most important resource for any community. Fresh water sources are, and likely were, ubiquitous across the rolling till plains of upstate New York.

However, communities still had standards of how far water should be from a village, and thus, these landscape features would have influenced settlement.

In addition, there is very little reoccupation of settlements among the

Haudenosaunee, so we know that part of the decision process was to avoid recently settled areas. This likely had to due with already depleted soils and wood resources and the still present garbage and waste. Further, ethnohistoric accounts indicate that spiritual concerns could affect a community’s decision of where to build a village. For any past culture, the decision of where to live was a confluence of a multitude of factors, some of which are extremely difficult to observe or measure in archaeological contexts.

This does not, however, devalue the overall venture or the resulting conclusions presented here. This research presents new empirical evidence to support the old idea that overland transportation routes were important to the Haudenosaunee. As expected, and as shown in previous research, environmental features associated with agricultural food

170 production weighed heavily in settlement location decisions. Breaking apart the agricultural needs in various features of the soil that may have been examined by past

Haudenosaunee farmers brings us closer to understanding the actual process and decisions that went into choosing a location. In addition, including wood resources and factors associated with building and storage requirements provides a more complete view of the system. Determining new ways to measure more factors will be key to gaining a greater understanding of past Haudenosaunee settlement ecology.

Advances in geographic information technology have dramatically improved settlement ecology research on past cultures. As our technology and methods improve, our knowledge of why past groups live where they do will improve as well. This will require developing methods for measuring the influence of even more natural, political, social, economic, and even ideological influences on the location, size, and distribution of settlements.

171 Chapter 6: Event History Analysis of Settlement Abandonment

This chapter explores another aspect of settlement ecology by examining the

factors that led to settlement abandonment. Thus, the previous chapter studied the pulls

toward particular locations; this chapter studies the pushes away from those locations. It also details our current knowledge of Haudenosaunee village abandonment, how event history analysis can help us better understand this part of the settlement system, and the

overall merits of event history analysis in settlement archaeology.

The objective of this study is to determine the particular environmental and

cultural factors that affected settlement duration and the degree of their effect. The

determination of natural or sociopolitical factors that are found to significantly extend or

decrease the lifespan of villages may indicate what resources were critical to the survival

of the Haudenosaunee people as well as their settlements. Event history analysis is

applied in several other research contexts but has been seldom used in archaeological

research despite promising results.

For this analysis, I use hazards models, which determine the risk of a particular

event occurring during a period of time (Allison 1984; Wood et al. 1992). The event of

interest in this research is the abandonment of a village. Specifically, I use Cox

proportional hazard models because they have the ability to analyze the effect of multiple

variables on the event in question (Allison 1984). In this study, the variables are the

environmental and sociopolitical factors introduced in the preceding chapters.

172 Event History Analysis in Anthropology

Event history analysis is most commonly employed to study change over time

(Allison 1984). Blossfield et al. (1989: 27) explain the applications of the methods in

more detail:

The basic statistical model of an event history analysis examines the length of time intervals between consecutive changes of state defined by some qualitative variable within some observation period.

Several different models are used within event history analysis. They are most often

applied in paleodemographic and medical cases but can be used on anything with a

lifespan. Archaeologically identified settlements or households with known establishment

and abandonment dates are good examples.

Cox proportional hazards models represent one method of event history analysis

and are used to analyze survival data when one or more variables, or covariates, are

believed to influence, either positively or negatively, the risk of a given event occurring

(Allison 1984). For example, in medical and paleodemographic studies, researchers have

used these models to examine the effects of age or sex on an event of interest.

Covariates can be endogenous or exogenous and can be qualitatively or

quantitatively measured (Blossfield and Rohwer 1995). Qualitative data can easily be

applied to the model by assigning a dummy variable to the data. In settlement studies

such as this research, covariates can include soil type, elevation, and distance to water, as

examples. Covariates are important because they take into account the important heterogeneity between the individuals studied (Blossfield and Rohwer 1995:114). In this research, the covariates allow for the differentiation of the village sites based on the

173 ecological settings in which they reside. Different versions of the Cox proportional

hazards model can also account for time dependent and time independent covariates.

They can also study censored individuals, who are those in a study that had the condition

of interest before the study period began (left-censored) and those who do not experience the event of interest by the end of the study period (right-censored).

Paine (1992) provides a precedent for using event history analysis in archaeological studies of settlement. His research displays the merits of using hazard models to assess the influence of environmental factors on household abandonment at the

Mayan site of Copán. Paine defined ecological zones based on environmental characteristics, and analyzed the duration of household occupation in relation to these

zones. He then assessed the sustainability of settlements in the various ecological zones

and found that households in more productive areas had lower rates of abandonment.

I use a similar strategy with slightly more environmental detail. I examine the

impact of specific environmental and sociopolitical characteristics such as elevation, slope, aspect, soil texture, soil drainage, potential for hardwood growth, frost action, distance to canoe navigable waterways, distance to overland trails, population size, and viewshed size to determine how these variables impacted the abandonment of

Haudenosaunee villages.

This study examines the risk of settlement abandonment occurring within a certain interval and the effect of various natural and sociopolitical factors on the risk of abandonment. We have establishment and abandonment dates for every site in this study, so no cases are right-censored. I conduct the Cox proportional hazards analyses in this research with the following equation,

174

βx hi(t) = h(t)e i

where h(t) represents the hazard rate, or incidence rate of an event common to every

village; β represents the regression coefficients; and xi a vector of observed covariates for

the ith village. Thus, the variable hi(t) represents the specific hazard of abandonment

occurring for the particular village being examined.

Covariates

Both time-nonvariant and time-varying covariates are analyzed in this study.

Time-varying covariates are those who’s effect changes over time. A number of models

are run assuming all covariates are time-nonvariant, and others are run with a particular

covariate assigned time-varying status. The characteristics of the covariates are discussed

below along with their status as time-nonvariant or time-varying.

I measured hardwood growth potential, soil drainage, and frost action as

percentages of total village catchment areas. The USDA NRCS soil classification of

hardwood growth is a measure of the potential of the soil to produce hardwood trees. It is

both a measure of the potential of the soil to produce hardwood, which is assumed to not

change over time, and a proxy measure of the number of hardwood trees in the area, which would have changed over time as people cut down trees. Thus, the percentage of hardwood growth and the distance to good hardwood growth were used as both a time- nonvariant and time-varying covariate in two separate models.

175 Soil drainage should not have changed over time. Unless there were major

climatic changes or changes to the aquifer, this should have remained constant over time.

Further, this classification is based primarily on properties of the soil, not the water held

within it. Haudenosaunee farmers were likely not moving around large quantities of soil

and changing the properties on any significant scale.

Although the environmental covariates like soil drainage likely did not undergo

changes in properties over time, their effect over time could have changed. For instance,

even short-term climatic changes could have altered the length of growing season in an

area. This would alter the effect of the amount of frost action land on settlement

abandonment. In fact, the lengthening of the growing season during the Medieval

Maximum likely led to the migration of Northern Iroquoian peoples into the central

valleys area around AD 900 (Snow 1995d). If the amount of frost action in an area

changed over time, it could have significantly affected the productivity of crops. In the

case of colder temperatures, it could have forced the abandonment of settlements for

areas with longer growing seasons. It is also possible that such changes could have

affected the potential for hardwood growth and soil drainage. In addition, longer

occupations would use more wood, which would change the effect of the amount of

hardwood in the catchment. As a result, the percentages of well-drained soil and

moderate frost action within catchments were also used as time-varying covariates in

particular models.

I assume here that the distance to transportation routes, both overland trails and canoe navigable waterways, did not change over time. However, the effect of the distance to travel routes could have changed. In times of more frequent warfare, being closer to

176 transportation routes might cause communities to abandon village locations if attacks

were frequent. On the other hand, after the establishment of European trading centers,

being closer to a transportation route may have encouraged a community to stay in a

location longer. These varying effects require this variable be analyzed as both a time-

nonvariant and a time-varying covariate.

The effect of viewshed size may have varied over time. Again, in times of

heightened conflicts, locations with larger viewsheds would have provided better protection. This may have impact communities’ decisions to stay or leave a particular village.

The effect of elevation also may have changed over time. In times of increased

warfare, being at higher elevations would have provided better protection. Communities

at these locations may have stayed longer to prolong this advantage.

In summary, a number of Cox models are created assuming all covariates are

time-nonvariant. In addition, eight models are run with one time-varying covariate in

each. These covariates are distance to hardwood growth, percentage of well-drained soil within the catchment, percentage of moderate frost action land within the catchment, percentage of good hardwood growth soil within the catchment, viewshed size, distance to overland trails, distance to canoe navigable waterways, and elevation.

Iroquoian Settlement Abandonment and Abandonment Rates

The semi-sedentary settlement system of Northern Iroquoian groups has been of

interest to anthropologists for several decades. Most research has focused on the factors

177 that led to the abandonment of villages. The traditional opinion is that soil nutrient

exhaustion and the depletion of wood resources for fuel and building materials led to the

eventual abandonment of Northern Iroquoian settlements (Pratt 1976; Guldenzopf 1984;

Trigger 1969). Ethnohistoric sources support these findings (JR 10:275, 19:133; Lafitau

1977). Some studies have indicated that extensive forms of agriculture practiced in the

deep glacial soils of the eastern Great Lakes and Northeast in villages of fewer than 200

individuals would have prevented the large-scale loss of soil nutrients (Snow 1986;

MacDonald 1986). These villages would have never exhausted the available soil. By the time all of the soil in a settlement’s catchment had been placed under cultivation, the original plots, which had been fallow for several years, would have been completely restored and could have been replanted without any decrease in productivity.

However, as presented in Chapter 3, village population sizes under 200 are rarely found in settlements occupied after AD 1500. Before AD 1500, it is believed that most

villages maintained populations in the low hundreds. After this date, the majority of

villages were over 500 individuals and often reached populations of 1000 or more.

Furthermore, several studies have suggested that before AD 1500, wood resource

depletion, garbage accumulation, combating thick vegetation on fallow plots, and pests around the village and fields would have become more significant problems long before

Haudenosaunee villagers ever exhausted the soils in their catchment (Sykes 1980; Bond

1982; Starna et al 1984; Snow 1994: 71; Engelbrecht 2003: 103). These problems likely still existed as limiting factors in larger villages, but soil nutrient depletion was also present and may have been the primary limiting factor. Warfare and the presence of evil

178 spirits have also been cited as causes of village movement (Snow 1994; Engelbrecht

2003).

In addition to the causes of village abandonment, previous research has also

attempted to determine generalities about Iroquoian village occupation times. This includes trying to determine average occupation time and a maximum possible

occupation time that applies to all settlements. Occupation time is closely tied to the

above discussion, and when addressing the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, most researchers agree that duration times were much shorter than during previous centuries.

Population growth and aggregation into larger villages coupled with the move from valley bottoms to hillsides and hilltops meant more people and less high-quality soil. The common thought is that this led to earlier soil depletion and the need to relocate sooner (Snow 1994; Engelbrecht 2003). Seventeenth century ethnohistoric sources suggest that villages moved every ten to twelve years (Starna et al 1984:197). However, there was considerable variation in these accounts. For instance, in AD 1681, Jesuit

missionaries encountered an Onondaga community that was in the process of moving

after staying in their previous residence 19 years (JR 62:55-57). Moreover, contrary to

the ten- to twelve-year generalization, ecological modeling suggests that most Wendat

villages would have needed to relocate every 20 to 40 years (Sykes 1980). This

discrepancy indicates that there may have been more affecting settlement abandonment

rates than just ecological factors.

179 Methods

I conducted all analyses for this portion of the research using SPSS. The covariates for the hazards analysis were the data on the percentage of various soil and land types within village catchments. I collected these data by intersecting the two- kilometer catchments with maps depicting various soil qualities (Figure 6.1). I calculated the area of each of the 125 site catchments and determined the percentages of specific soil types within each catchment by dividing their areas by the total catchment area.

These calculations included the percentages of good hardwood growth land, moderate frost action land, well-drained soil, moderately well drained soil, somewhat poorly drained soil, and poorly drained soil.

For each of these variables, one category of soil type was omitted to allow the models to converge. For sites that had 100% of one type of land within the catchment, the percentage was changed to 99% in order to allow these sites to be analyzed accurately.

180 Figure 6.1: The intersection of catchments of the Cayuga Indian Fort Road, Parker Farm, and Carman sites and two soil properties, soil drainage (left) and hardwood growth (right). The area of each soil type was calculated as a percentage of the total catchment area from these maps. The same measurement was taken for frost action.

In addition to these new measurements, variables used in the settlement location study were also used. These include average slope within the settlement area, majority slope class in the catchment, average aspect in the catchment, distance to well-drained soil, distance to moderate frost action, distance to good hardwood growth, distance to loamy soil, distance to overland trail, distance to canoe navigable waterway, cumulative viewshed size, and the ratio of visible contemporaneous settlements to all contemporaneous settlements. I calculated village occupation durations based on the establishment and abandonment dates previously described in Chapter 3.

181 For the majority slope class, which is a dummy variable, class 4 (land over 15%

slope) was left out of the model. Thus, the results from the other classes are in

comparison to this class.

I next entered the data into SPSS and conducted several Cox proportional hazards

analyses. The time variable was the duration of settlement. The status was abandoned or not, and all sites were assigned a dummy variable of “1” to signify that they had been abandoned. I conducted several analyses with various combinations of environmental and sociopolitical factors to observe if any covariates affected one another. The results

provided estimated regression coefficients, Wald test results, standard errors, and

conversion factors detailing the effect of each covariate on the hazard function.

Results

Tables 7.1 and 7.2 present the results of the Cox proportional hazards models with

the most useful results, as defined by significance values and coefficient variables. The

models provide the hazard per one unit change in the covariate. B is the regression

coefficient for each covariate, SE is the standard error, Wald is the results of the Wald

test, which indicates the importance of covariates, and Exp(B) is the variable. A

coefficient variable value greater than one indicates that larger values of the covariate are

related to a higher rate of settlement abandonment. A value less than one indicates that

larger values of the covariate are related to a lower rate of settlement abandonment. In

other terms, this number displays the covariates that either lead to higher or lower rates of

182 abandonment. The significance value indicates whether the coefficient variables are significant or not.

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distance to loamy soil 0 0 0.193 1 0.661 1.000

Mean slope at location -0.007 0.017 0.192 1 0.661 0.993

Majority of slope class 1 0.239 0.374 0.409 1 0.522 1.270 (0-4%) Majority of slope class 2 0.141 0.633 0.05 1 0.823 1.152 (4-8%) Majority of slope class 3 -0.453 0.592 0.587 1 0.444 0.636 (8-15%)

Mean aspect in catchment -0.003 0.003 1.000 1 0.317 0.997

Percentage good hardwood -0.001 0.004 0.081 1 0.776 0.999 growth in catchment Percentage moderate frost -0.006 0.005 1.195 1 0.274 0.994 action in catchment Percentage somewhat poor 0.046 0.03 2.39 1 0.122 1.048 drainage in catchment Percentage moderate 0.048 0.03 2.545 1 0.111 1.049 drainage in catchment Percentage well-drained in 0.048 0.029 2.767 1 0.096 1.050 catchment

Cumulative viewshed size 0 0 1.482 1 0.223 1.000

Distance to overland trail 0 0 0.364 1 0.546 1.000

Distance to waterway 0 0 1.226 1 0.268 1.000

ln(population) 0.294 0.127 5.353 1 0.021 1.342

N=102 Sig.=0.131 Table 7.1: Results of the hazards analysis conducted with all of the environmental covariates, the sociopolitical covariates minus elevation, and the natural log of population.

183 B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distance to loamy soil 0 0 0.984 1 0.321 1.000

Mean slope at location -0.023 0.018 1.691 1 0.193 0.977

Majority of slope class 1 0.314 0.381 0.681 1 0.409 1.370 (0-4%) Majority of slope class 2 -0.557 1.098 0.257 1 0.612 0.573 (4-8%) Majority of slope class 3 -0.412 0.615 0.448 1 0.503 0.662 (8-15%)

Mean aspect in catchment -0.001 0.003 0.118 1 0.732 0.999

Percentage good hardwood -0.008 0.004 3.266 1 0.071 0.992 growth in catchment Percentage moderate frost -0.017 0.006 7.036 1 0.008 0.984 action in catchment Percentage somewhat poor 0.039 0.033 1.391 1 0.238 1.040 drainage in catchment Percentage moderate 0.051 0.033 2.394 1 0.122 1.052 drainage in catchment Percentage well-drained in 0.048 0.032 2.289 1 0.13 1.049 catchment

Cumulative viewshed size 0 0 3.12 1 0.077 1.000

Distance to overland trail 0 0 0.876 1 0.349 1.000

Distance to waterway 0 0 3.238 1 0.072 1.000

Elevation 0.001 0.001 1.743 1 0.187 1.001

ln(population) 0.221 0.145 2.323 1 0.127 1.248

N=87 Sig.=0.023 Table 7.1: Results of the hazards analysis conducted with all of the environmental covariates, all of the sociopolitical covariates, and the natural log of population.

Several analyses were run with different combinations of covariates to examine the individual and combined effects of particular factors on the abandonment rate. The results of the other models are displayed in Appendix E. One other model had a significance level below 0.05. This model included all environmental and sociopolitical

184 factors and population. The natural log of population models the effect of population more accurately, so this other model was not used as one of the primary model for this discussion.

The models above were chosen as the primary models for this study because of the presence of all covariates, the low significance values, and the use of the natural log of population in each. The last factor is important because the population numbers are significantly larger than any of the other measurements. The model ignored their effect because they were being analyzed simply as large numbers. The variation across the settlements was lost. By taking the natural log of the population sizes, this problem of scale was eliminated and the effect of population on the abandonment rates was accurately displayed. Two models are presented here because of the effect of elevation.

There are a small number of sites with poorly known locations, so accurate elevation data is not available. The model represented in Table 7.1 omits elevation, but the significance level is moderate. The model represented in Table 7.2 includes elevation and has a low significance value, but the sample size is reduced to 87 cases. As a result of slight drawbacks to each, both models are used in combination for the discussion of the effects of the covariates on the abandonment of villages.

The models generated with time-varying covariates showed no significant effect

of any of the time-varying covariates. Each of the aforementioned variables, when

analyzed as time-varying, had high significance values and coefficient variable values of

one.

Distance to loamy soil had no effect on the abandonment rates. The significance

value is large and the coefficient is 1.

185 Larger average slope values at the settlement locations slightly decreased the rate

of abandonment (1-2%). However, the significance value is moderate in one model and

very high in the other. The majority slope class within the catchment had noticeable

effect on the abandonment rate. Settlements with a majority of class 1 slope (0-4%) had

an increased rate of abandonment of 27% in one model and 37% in the other. Settlements

with a majority of class 2 slope (4-8%) had an increased rate of abandonment of 15% in one model and a decreased rate in the other of 43%. Settlements with a majority of class

3 slope (8-15%) had a decreased rate of abandonment of 34% in one model and 36% in the other.

The average aspect of the land within a site’s catchment had very little effect on the abandonment rate, and that effect has a high significance value.

The percentage of good hardwood growth soil within a settlement’s catchment had a very slight impact on the abandonment rate. Higher percentages of this soil type around a settlement decreased the abandonment rate by 1%. The significance value for this covariate is low in one model and very high in the other.

The percentage of moderate frost action land within a settlement’s catchment also had a small impact on the abandonment rate. Higher percentages of this land type around a settlement decreased the abandonment rate by approximately 1%. The significance value is very low in one model and moderate in the other.

The percentages of the three soil drainage types analyzed all slightly increase the abandonment rates of villages. This is in comparison to poorly drained soil. More of each

soil type in each catchment increased the rate of abandonment by 4-5%. The significance

values for all three are moderate in both models.

186 The coefficient variables for the four sociopolitical factors, cumulative viewshed,

distance to overland trails, distance to waterways, and elevation, had no impact on the hazard of abandonment for villages. Cumulative viewshed size and distance to waterways

have low significance values but their effects on the abandonment rate were non-existent.

Larger values of the natural log of population increase the rate of abandonment

for settlements. The rate increases approximately 25-34%. The significance value is very

low in one model and moderately low in the other.

Discussion

More moderately well-drained and well-drained soil, and higher populations

appear to have increased the rate of village abandonment. More hardwood trees and more

moderate frost action areas decreased the rate of village abandonment.

The results of the majority slope class in settlement catchments are interesting,

but the results are not significant. However, the effects of slope are consistent across

every model, so the results are worthy of a discussion. It was previously stated that land

under 15% is optimal for growing maize. Thus, it is not a surprise that in the second

model (Figure 7.2), classes 2 and 3 are associated with lower rates of village

abandonment compared to class 4 (over 15%). However, the fact that class 1 is associated

with much higher rates of abandonment is surprising when just the agricultural effects are

taken into account. When defensive concerns are included, the results are easily

explained.

187 Settlements with a majority of class 1 slope within their catchments were surrounded by large areas of flat land. This was good for farming, but did not provide any

natural boundaries against potential attackers. On the other hand, a large amount of class-

4 land meant that there were many natural defensive barriers to protect a village but very little good agricultural land. The best strategy is moderately sloping land, classes 2 and 3, which provide some defensive benefits and are also well within acceptable ranges for farming. They types of locations that are represented by these slope classes would be settlements built on low hills or large hills with gradual slopes. Several Haudenosaunee settlements were built in these settings, and apparently, these settings reduced the pushes from warfare to leave.

Although the overall effect on the abandonment rate was small, the percentages of

good hardwood growth soil and moderate frost action land have significant covariate

variables. Higher percentages of both were associated with lower abandonment rates.

More hardwood within a catchment would have meant that it took longer to exhaust this

resource, which was important for both building materials and fuel. Similarly, more moderate frost action land would have meant less chance of late spring or early fall frosts

killing crops. The more reliable harvests were at a location from year-to-year likely

meant people were willing to stay there for longer periods of time. In addition, stored

agricultural products provided the bulk of winter foods, and any decrease in these stores

would have been disastrous for a community. Thus, communities that maximized the

amount of land less prone to frost action around villages were able to stay at these

locations for longer periods of time.

188 The soil drainage findings are interesting. Given the preference of maize, beans, and squash for well-drained soils, it was expected that higher percentages of these two drainage types would have decreased village abandonment rates. There are several explanations. The first is that the model may not be representing these covariates accurately. The second is that poorly drained soil was not just related to agricultural needs. It was also linked to springs and marshes and wetlands. Springs would have been important sources of freshwater and wetlands were important wild resource zones.

Having an overwhelming amount of well-drained soil in a catchment may have meant that these important resources were not nearby settlements. Finally, the idea that mixtures of soil types may have been important as a risk management strategy (Snow 1995a:366,

371) could have an impact on these results. If it is important to have a mosaic of different soil drainage types, then having a large majority of any one type may have been bad for long-term settlement survival.

The sociopolitical covariates had no effect on the hazard rate. Settlements closer to transportation routes had easier access to trade, so in cases of food shortages, they could have easily gone to a neighboring village or nation for help. Similarly, in cases of warfare, villages closer to transportation routes would have been more likely to be seen and attacked. On the other hand, they would have been closer to transportation routes making it easier to send for help and for allies to provide help. These are just a small number of the contradictory relationships. These situations could have negated one another and made the proximity to these features a neutral covariate.

Population size had a significant impact on the abandonment rate of a village.

Higher populations demand more food and would exhaust both land for farming and wild

189 resources more quickly than small populations. In addition, larger populations would

consume wood resources more quickly. When all of the wood within an acceptable

gathering range was depleted, villages would move (Lafitau 1977). Larger populations would also produce more waste and garbage. At some point, these may have accumulated to level that were unacceptable to Haudenosaunee communities. Several explanations can account for the positive effect of population on the abandonment rate.

The drawbacks of a larger population appear to outweigh the benefits. For example, more people would provide better defenses against attack. Also, larger populations provide a larger work force for building projects and land clearing. However, these benefits do not appear to have outweighed the pushes of depleted resources and accumulation of waste and garbage.

The absence of certain factors from this analysis must also be considered.

Although, the defensibility of settlements was measured through several locational features, this does not necessarily assess the effect of warfare on settlement. Periodic increases in the frequency or intensity of warfare, in addition to specific recorded cases of village destruction (i.e. O’Callahan 1855), caused abandonments. There is no accurate way to measure or model these changes or events. As mentioned, there are recorded cases in which Haudenosaunee people cited evil spirits as the reason for moving from a village.

There are also several recorded cases of Iroquoian communities moving after epidemics (Trigger 1976; Snow 1995a). Severely depopulated communities found themselves living in villages that were too large for them. There were too many empty or sparsely inhabited longhouses. In one instance among the Wendat, a community moved for this reason from a village that was only five years old (JR XXI:159). Depopulation

190 events are not used in these models but could have had a significant impact on village abandonment during the last half of the seventeenth century.

Warfare, depopulation, and ideology are not the only untested potential causes.

Dean Snow (personal communication 2008) has suggested that generational factors and building deterioration may have been a factor in the eventual abandonment of villages.

From generation to generation, community and household composition changed. Sons would marry out of a household and marry into another. In the matrilineal system, this required a new groom to move to his wife’s family’s longhouse. This sometimes required the construction of new compartments on the existing longhouse. As time progressed, village structures such as longhouses and palisades deteriorated. They were after all wooden structures partially buried in a temperate environment. At some point, there may have been a breaking point in which community members recognized that longhouses were too dilapidated and required more energy to repair than it took to build new dwellings. Coupled with the need to change the configuration of longhouse sizes, the simplest course may have been to build a new village.

Unfortunately, there is no direct way to identify the effect of cumulative factors archaeologically or include them in the event history models. Warrick (2008) devised a method to determine the repair episodes of a longhouse by counting the density of postmolds in longhouse wall remains. However, we have no way of determining what the cultural standard was for the number of repairs that occurred before inhabitants abandoned a longhouse. This may have varied between communities and even between houses. In addition, deterioration of particular houses likely did not always result in complete settlement abandonment. It is likely that new houses were built within villages

191 without complete community movements. However, as Warrick (1990:238) noted, reconstruction at Iroquoian sites is difficult to recognize because new longhouses were often built directly over older versions.

Further, in order to use such a factor in event history analysis, one would have to determine the average number of repair episodes that occurred at each village being used in the study. Compared between sites, this could indicate whether more repair episodes per house increased the abandonment rate. Although there have been several longhouses excavated at various Haudenosaunee sites, there simply have not been enough complete excavations of sites to create such a variable.

Conclusion

In Paine’s (1992) study of Mayan household abandonment, he found that households located in landscapes determined to be marginal for agriculture had higher rates of abandonment. This research found very different reasons for abandonment among Haudenosaunee communities. The environmental setting did not appear to affect the abandonment of settlements as much as the population size gathered at a particular location.

Anthropologists have investigated the factors that lead to Haudenosaunee village abandonment through ethnohistoric research, archaeological research, and environmental modeling. The use of event history analysis provides another tool in this investigation and has shed light on possible primary factors in the abandonment of villages. Factors such as soil nutrient depletion, wood resource depletion, pest infestations, and accumulation of

192 waste and garbage have been common explanations for abandonment (Sykes 1980;

Guldenzopf 1984; Starna et al 1984). The results of this research imply that the ultimate factor behind these proximate factors may have been the population size of a settlement.

Larger population sizes increased the rate of resource consumption and waste accumulation, and thus, the rate of village abandonment. Snow (1986) and MacDonald

(1986) suggested similar effects of population on abandonment in relation to agricultural production.

Growing season, measured here as frost action, also appears to have played a role in decisions about when to leave villages. This is a previously unnoticed factor and implies that more stable and reliable locations for agricultural production encouraged communities to stay for longer periods.

The wider importance of these results is the establishment of a method for measuring the effect of various factors on the abandonment rate of villages. The results here go beyond the identification of factors leading to abandonment and describe the relative and absolute effects of these factors. Thus, this research further explores

Haudenosaunee settlement ecology and helps us to understand another aspect of their settlement system. As previously mentioned, part of settlement ecology is the examination of factors that push and pull communities to and from locations. The research described in Chapter 6 examined the locational pulls. Although it is not possible to determine whether population size, the distribution of hardwood trees, and the distribution of moderate frost action land were pushes or pulls, this research identifies that they were important factors in the decision to relocate.

193 Although seldom used in archaeology, event history analysis is an effect tool for adding an independent line of empirical evidence to discussions of the factors affecting settlement abandonment and for identifying the relative and actual effects of these factors.

194 Chapter 7: Conclusion

The first goal of this dissertation was to reconstruct population trends for the

Haudenosaunee during AD 1500-1700. Settlement area was used to estimate population sizes at specific archaeological sites and this data was combined using accumulated chronological data on occupation times. Population curves were successfully constructed for the Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca nations and compared to existing data on the

Mohawk.

The results of this population research provide four contributions to the study of

Iroquoian and other Native American populations. First, the comparison of the curves strongly suggests that migration episodes were very important in shaping the demographic and cultural landscape of the eastern Great Lakes and Northeast during this time period. Migrations within and from outside the Haudenosaunee were important in bolstering pre-contact/pre-disease population sizes and aiding in recovery after population losses from European-introduced diseases. Studies of migration in North

American archaeology have been cyclical in intensity and this research suggests that these demographic events were important in shaping this region and that they deserve more attention.

Second, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca populations provide further support that

European-introduced diseases did not affect Native American populations in the eastern

Great Lakes and Northeast until the mid-seventeenth century. The Seneca provide the earliest evidence of any possible depopulation around AD 1620. Population losses ranged

195 from around 40% to 80% depending on the nation; the mean overall population loss for

the Haudenosaunee was approximately 66%.

Third, these results show that Native American populations had complex and

highly variable histories before contact with Europeans. More specifically, the Oneida

and Eastern Seneca data show evidence of highly fluctuating population trends likely

related to migration events, warfare, diseases, and subsequent recoveries. In addition, the

Oneida may have reached a population maximum thirty years prior to the first direct

contact between Haudenosaunee and European peoples. This provides support for

suggestions that Native American populations did not simple remain stable or increase

steadily until the time of contact (Thornton 1987; Thornton 1997). This complexity must

be kept in mind at all times while studying Native American populations. Too often the

focus has been on size before contact and effects of contact. A true understanding of

Native American cultural development comes from reconstructing the details of pre-

contact and contact period population trends.

Lastly, the population curves indicate that diseases in the eastern Great Lakes

were epidemic in nature and spread irregularly between geographically separated

populations. Even among the closely related Haudenosaunee nations there may have been

significant temporal gaps between primary disease events. Geographic and political

buffers were significant factors in the direction and timing of disease spread. Among the nations, it appears that the Seneca, located on the western end of the confederacy, and

Mohawk, located on the eastern end, were affected first. These groups dominated economic and political contacts with Europeans at first, and diseases may have reached the interior nations only after they began bypassing these nations and contacting

196 Europeans themselves. This suggests that diseases spread directly from European traders to Haudenosaunee people with little transmission occurring between the nations themselves.

The second goal of this dissertation was to identify the factors that influenced

settlement location and determine their relative influence. This included an examination

of the factors that caused communities to abandon particular locations. The

environmental and landscape features at and around each settlement location were

examined and described in order to recognize commonalities and variability. These

results were compared to a random patterning in order to identify the most significant

influences on Haudenosaunee settlement location choices. Event history analysis,

specifically the Cox proportional hazards model, was used to determine the effect of

various environmental and landscape features in the abandonment of village locations.

This research found that sociopolitical factors like transportation and

communication in addition to soil and landscape features related to high agricultural

production were influential in determining the location of Haudenosaunee villages. The

inclusion of several previously unanalyzed sociopolitical factors further increased our ability to explain why villages were located in particular locations. Previous research

tended to focus on the absence of influence of natural factors to imply that sociopolitical

factors were at work. This study directly tested the impact of several sociopolitical factors

and was able to make statements about their influence on Haudenosaunee settlement. As

a result, transportation appears to have had more influence on settlement location than

was formerly thought.

197 In the absence of strong influences from natural factors, warfare was often assumed to be the primary factor pulling Haudenosaunee settlements from expected ideal natural settings. This research shows that defensibility of villages was a factor for some nations, but often was met through non-spatial means like the construction of palisades.

On the other hand, transportation and communication routes appear to have been critical for all of the Haudenosaunee. In fact, these landscape features had similar levels of influence as soil and landscape features related to subsistence production.

Anthropologists have debated the factors underlying Haudenosaunee village abandonment for decades. Previous research focused primarily on ethnohistoric accounts and analyses of the decline of soil productivity over time. This research attempted to explore these factors empirically using event history analysis to study abandonment rates.

The results indicate that numerous factors described in ethnohistoric accounts and archaeological studies may have all played a part in the decision of when to abandon a village. Alternatively, unexplored causes such as frequency of intergroup conflicts, exhaustion rates of critical resources, and ideological concerns may have led to abandonment. The one result that appears definitive is that sociopolitical factors had little impact on the abandonment rates of villages. The results show that event history analysis is a viable method for the empirical analysis of Haudenosaunee settlement abandonment.

The information presented here on Haudenosaunee settlement ecology has the potential to help understand the temperate swidden agricultural adaptation in North

America. It is not surprising that the analysis of the individual nations shows at least one soil characteristic beneficial to maize agriculture influencing each group. The

Haudenosaunee in AD 1500-1700 probably relied on agricultural products for at least

198 50% of their diet as their AD 1300 ancestors did (Schwarcz et al 1985, Katzenberg et al

1995). For other cultures with higher percentages, the influence of beneficial soil

properties would be expected to increase. With regard to transportation routes, the

Haudenosaunee may be a special case due to the existence of the confederacy. It would

be interesting to see if a similar pattern exists for other Iroquoian cultures aligned in

confederacies. Politically solitary societies may not require as much diplomacy and thus

not as much travel. A comparison of the Haudenosaunee with groups who have similar

subsistence but are not members of a confederacy (i.e. Susquehannocks) would be interesting as well. It is important to keep in mind, though, that agricultural groups, even those with shifting settlement systems, tend to be frequently involved in warfare and other inter-group political relationships (Keeley 1996).

Slash-and-burn agriculture was traditionally portrayed as an environmentally destructive subsistence strategy and was associated with diminishing rainforests in tropical regions. However, recent ecological research has shown that swidden techniques are ideally suited for tropical environments and that environmental degradation primarily occurs in overpopulated areas (Russell 1998). When the system is forced to feed large numbers of people with insufficient land, farmers decrease fallow times and soils become subject to nutrient exhaustion and erosion (Kleinman et al 1995; Russell 1998). Similar findings do not exist for temperate swidden agricultural groups, as few of these cultures exist today. Settlement ecology research into archaeological cultures who practiced this subsistence in conjunction with research into impacts on the environment could indicate how this system remained sustainable for hundreds of years among cultures like the

199 Haudenosaunee nations and if there are any modern applications of these farming

techniques.

Future Directions

This research provides new information on Haudenosaunee population trends, but

more research needs to be conducted. Future work should include research at smaller

scales and larger scales. More detailed analyses of settlements can reveal internal

configurations such as the number and size of longhouses. This data will allow for more

testing of the area per person ratios and a more nuanced understanding of Haudenosaunee

populations and how they changed over the lifespan of a village. This will allow us to

improve the chronology of the population trends even further.

Research at a larger scale will put the Haudenosaunee trends in context with other

groups living in the region. In addition, focusing on other Northern Iroquoian

populations, such as the Erie, Wenro, Neutral, St. Lawrence Iroquoians, and

Susquehannock, would help us to understand the common threads as well as variation among the temperate swidden agriculturalists of the Great Lakes and Northeast. The

Haudenosaunee present an almost ideal case for building models with which other populations can be studied. The more detail we can achieve in our knowledge of their population will allow us to construct stronger models that can help us understand more demographic detail in North America.

Warrick (2008) showed the benefits of examining population sizes and trends during earlier time periods as well. It would benefit all those studying Haudenosaunee

200 culture and cultural development to generate population data for periods prior to AD

1500. Similar to Warrick’s (2008) research, this could help us understand the conditions under which the Haudenosaunee adopted maize agriculture. It also has the potential to add important information to debates like the timing of the arrival of Northern Iroquoian peoples in the eastern Great Lakes and Northeast. Finally, this research was able to identify migration episodes for the five Haudenosaunee nations. It would be interesting to see if these could be identified during earlier periods and how much of impact migrations had on cultural development in this region and those adjacent to it.

This dissertation built upon earlier investigations into Haudenosaunee settlement ecology. There is much more to research on this topic. Finding new and creative ways to measure cultural influences will be key to understanding the Haudenosaunee settlement location aspect of the total settlement system. In addition, this research only examined the location and abandonment of village locations. This left out important settlement characteristics like factors that influence settlement size and what causes village fissioning and fusioning. Most existing discussions of Haudenosaunee settlement size focus on the limits of tribal social organizations on the size of a community. We do not know why certain village sizes were chosen and we have assumptions about why there appear to be two different occupational densities but no testable data. These are related to both population and settlement ecology research, and answers to these questions could greatly improve our understanding of Haudenosaunee cultural development.

Further, there were a number of similar swidden agricultural groups throughout

North America, Europe, and Asia. Studies of more of these societies could begin to elucidate generalities and the variation of the swidden agricultural adaptation in

201 temperate zones. Large variations in available resources, technology, and sociopolitical

organization exist across these societies and regions, so it would be of interest to determine if there are similarities and differences in how swidden agriculturalists situate

themselves on the landscape with respect to these variables.

An ethnohistoric study of traditional Haudenosaunee soil classifications could

inform us more about the relationship between settlement location and soil features.

Wilhusen and Stone’s (1990) study of traditional soil classifications allowed them to effectively investigate Kofyar soil terminology and its relation to scientific categorizations. These two soil classification schemes can then be compared to settlement

locations and agricultural activity. Haudenosaunee people still live in the central valleys

of New York and have remained connected to their ancestral land. Collaborative projects

between anthropologists and Haudenosaunee people would provide insight into

traditional ecology and possibly help to explain the spatial relationship between

settlement locations and particular soil types.

As this research has shown, the Haudenosaunee nations, their ancestors, and other similar middle-range swidden agricultural groups have much to offer to our understanding of Native American cultural development, pre-industrial populations, and the complex relationships between biological needs, cultural needs, and settlement. The hope is that future anthropological research into the population and settlement of

Iroquoian societies will expand and continue to further our knowledge of the

development of past and modern human populations and societies.

202 References

Allen, Kathleen M.S. 1996 Iroquoian Landscapes: People, Environments, and the GIS Context, in New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, edited by Herbert D.G. Maschner, pp. 198-222, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

1998 Archaeology in the Cayuga Lake Region. Paper presented at the Northeast Archaeology Symposium, Cayuga Museum, Auburn, NY

Allison, Paul D. 1984 Event History Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event Data. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, edited by Michael S. Lewis-Black. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.

Andrews, William 1714 Letter to the Secretary of the Society, May 25. Records of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Letter Books, Series A (microfilm, 1962, Roll 4). Vol. 9. Pp. 123-125, London.

Anthony, David W. 1990 Migration in Archeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthropologist 92:895-914.

Bamann, Susan 1993 Settlement Nucleation in Mohawk Iroquois Prehistory: An Analysis of a Site Sequence in the Lower Otsquago Drainage of the Mohawk Valley. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, SUNY Albany.

Bennett, Monte 1973 The Moot Site (Sullivan), Ond 3-4. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 14(1).

1979 The Blowers Site, Ond 1-4: An Early Historic Oneida Settlement. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 18(2).

1981 A Longhouse Pattern on the Cameron Site (Ond 8-4). NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 19(2).

1983 Glass Trade Beads from Central New York. Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference. Edited by Charles F. Hayes III. Research Record 16, Rochester Museum and Science Center. Pp. 51-58.

1984 The Stone Quarry Site (Msv 4-2): A Mid-Seventeenth Century Oneida Iroquois Station in Central New York. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 21(2).

203

1988 The Primes Hill Site Msv 5-2: An Eighteenth Century Oneida Station. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 22(4).

1991 Onneyuttehage, Thurston, Msv-1: A Story of a Screened Sidehill Midden. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 24(3).

1999 A Longhouse Pattern on the Thurston Site (Msv 1-2). NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 27(1):9-41.

2006 Personal communication

Bennett, Monte and Richard Cole 1976 The Marshall Site MSV 7-2. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 16(3):8-14.

Bennett, Walter 1962 Gunlocks and Gunflints. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 3(4).

Binford, Lewis R. 1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations, in New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 5-32. Aldine, Chicago.

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

Blossfield, Hans-Peter, Alfred Hamerle, and Karl Ulrich Mayer 1989 Event History Analysis: Statistical Theory and Application in the Social Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Blossfield, Hans-Peter and Götz Rohwer 1995 Techniques of Event History Modeling: New Approaches to Causal Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Bond, Jr., Stanley C. 1985 The Relationship Between Soils and Settlement Patterns in the Mohawk Valley, in The Mohawk Valley Project: 1982 Field Season Report. The Institute for Northeast Anthropology, pp. 17-40, State University of New York at Albany, Albany.

Brandão, Jose Antonio 1997 Your Fyre Shall Burn No More: Iroquois Policy toward New France and Its Native Allies to 1701. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

2003 Nation Iroquoise: A Seventeenth-Century Ethnography of the Iroquois. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

204

Bradley, James W. 1976 A Report on European Glass Beads From the Lot 18 Site. Beauchamp Chapter NYSAA Bulletin 1(1).

1977 The Pompey Center Site: The Impact of European Trade Goods 1600-1620. Beauchamp Chapter NYSAA Bulletin 2(1).

1987 Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois. Syracuse University, Syracuse.

2006 Personal communication

2007 Before Albany: An Archaeology of Native-Dutch Relations in the Capital Region 1600-1664. New York State Museum Bulletin 509, Albany.

Casselberry, Samuel E. 1974 Further Refinement of Formulae for Determining Population from Floor Area, in World Archaeology 6(1):117-122.

Centerwall, William 1968 A Recent Experience with Measles in a “Virgin-Soil” Population, in Biomedical Challenges Presented by the American Indian. Pan American Sanitary Bureau, Pulicaciones Cientificas 165. Pp. 77-81. World Health Organization, Washington, D.C.

Chagnon, Napoleon 1992 Yanomamö. Fourth edition. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth.

Champlain, Samuel de 1907 The Voyage of Samuel de Champlain, 1604-1618. Barnes and Noble, New York.

1922-36 The Works of Samuel de Champlain. Henry P. Biggar, editor. Volume 3. The Champlain Society, Toronto.

Child, Hamilton 1868 Gazetteer and Business Directory of Tompkins County, New York for 1868. Syracuse.

Chisholm, Michael 1968 Rural Settlement and Land Use. Second edition. Hutchinson, London.

Christaller, Walter 1966[1933] Central Places in Southern Germany. Translated by C. W. Baskin. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

205 Clark, Lynn 2004 Gender at an Early Seventeenth-Century Oneida Village. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University, SUNY.

Connolly, James and Mark Lake 2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Cambridge, London.

Cole, Richard and Monte Bennett 1974 The Upper Hogan Site OND 5-4. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 15(2).

Coyne, James H. 1903 Galinee’s Narrative and Map. Ontario Historical Society, Papers and Records. vol. IV, Toronto.

Cowan, C. Wesley 1985 Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: Lessons from Botany, Ethnography, and Archaeology, in Prehistoric Food Production in North America, edited by R. Ford. University of Michigan Anthropological Papers 75, Ann Arbor.

Crosby, Alfred W. 1986 Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900. Cambridge, Cambridge.

Day, Gordon M. 1953 The Indian as an Ecological Factor in the Northeastern Forest, in Ecology 34(2):329-346. de Baugy, Chevalier 1930 Journal of the Expedition of Marquis de Denonville against the Iroquois: 1687, translated and edited by N.S. Olds. Rochester Historical Society Publication Func Series, Vol. 9, pp. 9-52, Rochester. de Casson, Dollier and Rene De Brehant de Galinee 1903 Exploration of the Great Lakes, 1669-1670. Translated and edited by James H. Coyne. Ontario Historical Society, Papers and Records, Vol IV, Toronto.

DeAngelo, Gordon A. 1963 Unpublished map of Olcott Site

1976 A Cultural Sequence Chart for Central New York. Beauchamp Chapter NYSAA Bulletin 1(1).

206 DeOrio, Robert Nicholas 1977 Perspectives on Early Iroquois Acculturation: the Cayuga. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the New York State Archaeological Association. Manuscript in author’s possession.

1978 A Preliminary Sequence of the Historic Cayuga Nation Within the Traditional Area: 1600-1740. New York State Archaeological Association, Beauchamp Newsletter 9(4).

1980 Perspectives on the Prehistoric Cayuga, Post Owasco Tradition, through the Correlation of Ceramic Types with Area Development, in Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery Conference, Charles F. Hayes III, editor, pp. 65-85. Research Records 13, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester.

1999 Harrison Calvin Follett: In Recognition of His Contribution to Cayuga Archaeology, 1927 to 1954. Paper prepared for the The Cayuga Museum, Auburn, New York. Manuscript in author’s possession.

2007 Personal communication

DeVoto, Bernard, editor 1953 The Journals of Lewis and Clark. Houghton Mifflin, New York.

Dobyns, Henry F. 1966 Estimating Aboriginal American Population. Current Anthropology 7(4):395- 416.

1983 Their Number Become Thinned: Naïve American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Drooker, Penelope 1997 The View from Madisonville: Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns. Memiors of the Museum of Anthropology, no. 31, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Engelbrecht, William 1985 New York Iroquois Political Development, in Cultures in Contact: The European Impact on Native Cultural Institutions in Eastern North America, A.D. 1000- 1800, William Fitzhugh editor. Anthropological Society of Washington Series, Smithsonian Institute, Washington.

2003 Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World. Syracuse University, Syracuse.

Fecteau, Rudy, James Molnar, and Gary Warrick 1991 Iroquoian Ecology, in Birdstone 5(1):1-19

207 Fenton, William N. 1998 The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy. University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Fitzgerald, William A. 1982 Lest the beaver run loose: The early 17th century Christianson stie and trends in historic Neutral archaeology. Paper no. 111, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

2001 Contact, Neutral Iroquoian Transformation, and the Little Ice Age, in Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400-1700. D. Brose, C. Cowan, and R. Mainfort, Jr. eds., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, pp. 37-47.

Follette, Harrison C. 1947 Chronology of Indian Affairs in Cayuga County, in Bulletin of the Archaeology Society of Central New York (2)6:38-40.

1951 The Dann Site or Gandachioragou, Gannounata, Keinthe, unpublished.

1953 Sequence Chart of the Cayuga Nation, in The Archaeological Society of Central New York Bulletin 8(10).

1957 The Cayugas, in The Archaeological Society of Central New York Bulletin 12(3).

Fortin, Marie-Josee and Mark R.T. Dale 2005 Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists. Cambridge University, London.

Fraser, D. 1983 Land and Society in Neolithic Orkney. British Archaeological Reports: Oxford.

Funk, Robert E. 1993 Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State. Persimmon Press Monographs in Archaeology, Buffalo.

Funk, Robert E. and Robert Kuhn 2003 Three Sixteenth-Century Mohawk Iroquois Village Sites, New York State Museum Bulletin 503.

Ghere, David L 1997 Myths and Methods in Demography: Abenaki Population Recovery, 1725-1750, in Ethnohistory. 60(3):511-534.

Gibson, Stanford 1968 The Oran-Barnes Site. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 10(August): 1-22.

208 1986 A Report on Two Oneida Iroquois Indian Sites. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 22(1): 1-10.

Guldenzopf, David 1984 Frontier Demography and Settlement Patterns of the Mohawk Iroquois, in Man in the Northeast 27:79-94.

Halsey, F. 1906 A Tour of Four Great Rivers. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.

Hammond, Luna M. 1872 The History of Madison County New York. Truair, Smith, & Co., Syracuse

Hassan, Fekri 1978 Demographic Archaeology, in Advances in archaeological method and theory, 1:49-103. Academic Press, New York.

Hayes III, Charles F. 1965 The Boughton Hill Site as a National Historic Landmark, in Museum Service Bulletin of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences.

1967a Longhouse at the Cornish Site, in Iroquois Culture, History, and Prehistory: Proceedings of the 1965 Conference on Iroquois Research, edited by Elisabeth Tooker, pp. 91-97. New York State Museum and Science Service, Albany. 1967b A Prehistoric Iroquois Longhouse At The Reed Fort Site, in Museum Service Bulletin of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, pp. 25-31.

Hasenstab, Robert J. 1996a Settlement as Adaptation: Variability in Iroquois Village Site Selection As Inferred Through GIS, in New Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems in Modern Archaeological Research, edited by Herbert D.G. Maschner, pp. 223-241, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

1996b Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in Late Woodland Upper New York State, in Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 12:17-26.

Hayes, Gerald L., Daryl E. Wonderly, Daniel R. Hayes, Edwin Gibson, Francis J. Hailey, Richard E. Hosbach, and Alexander B. Neill 1999 A Long Oneida Iroquois Longhouse at Vaillancourt. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 27(1);1-8.

Hayes, Gerald L., Daryl E. Wonderly, Larry Bates, Edwin Gibson, Francis J. Hailey, Richard E. Hosbach, and Alexander B. Neill 2001 Vaillancourt 1999/2000. Chenango Chapter Bulletin 28(1):1-5.

209 Heidenreich, Conrad E. 1971 Huronia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians 1600-1650. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto.

Herrick, F.E. 1897 An Ancient Fortification in Tompkins County, New York, in The Antiquarian 1(4):85-87.

Hickerson, Daniel A. 1997 Historical Processes, Epidemic Disease, and the Formation of the Hasinai Confederacy, in Ethnohistory 44(1):31-52.

Hoffman, Albert n.d. Beal site 1917-1938. Unpublished field notes.

Hosbach, Richard E. 2004 Carlo I and Carlo II Coins Found on Two New York Iroquois Sites. A Passion for the Past: Papers in Honour of James F. Pendergast. Edited by James V. Wright and Jean-Luc Pilon. Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 164. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec. Pp. 193-204.

Hosbach, Richard E. and Stanford Gibson 1980 The Wilson Site (Ond-9): A Protohistoric Oneida Village. NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 18(4B).

Huey, Paul n.d. Personal communication, letter written to Dean R. Snow

Jemison, G. Peter 2007 Personal communication

Jones, David M. and Anne Jones 1980 The Defenses at Indian Fort Road, Tompkins County, New York (“An ancient fortification in Tompkins County, N.Y.” –revisited), in Pennsylvania Archaeologist 50:61-71.

Jones, Eric E. 2006a Applying GIS to the Settlement Demography of the Iroquois. Unpublished poster presented at the 2006 Society for American Archaeology Meetings, San Juan, PR. Poster available from author.

2006b Using Viewshed Analysis to Explore Settlement Choice: A Case Study of the Onondaga Iroquois, in American Antiquity 71(3):523-538.

210 Joralemon, Donald 1982 New World Depopulation and the Case of Disease, in Journal of Anthropological Research 38(1):108-127.

JR = Thwaites, Ruben Gold (editor) 1959 The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents 1610-1791. 73 Vols. Pageant, New York.

Katzenberg, M. Anne, Henry P. Swarcz, Martin Knyf, and Jerry Melbye 1995 Stable Isotope Evidence for Maize Horticulture and Paleodiet in Southern Ontario, Canada, in American Antiquity 60(2):335-50.

Kay, Jeanne 1984 The Fur Trade and Native American Population Growth, in Ethnohistory 31(4):265-287.

Keck, Charlene A. 2005 Faunal Analysis from the 1993-2003 Excavations at the Vaillancourt Site (Ond 19), Madison County, New York. Report prepared for the Legal Department, Oneida Indian Nation.

Keeley, Lawrence H. 1996 War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Oxford Press, New York.

Keener, Craig 1999 An Ethnohistoric Analysis of Iroquois Assault Tactics Used Against Fortified Settlements of the Northeast in the Seventeenth Century, in Ethnohistory 46(4):777-807.

Kelley, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian, Washington D.C.

Kleinman, P.J.A, D. Pimentel, and R.B. Bryant 1995 The Ecological Sustainability of Slash-and-Burn Agriculture, in Agriculture, Ecosystems, and the Environment 52:235-249.

Kohler, Timothy A. 1988 Predictive Locational Modeling: History and Current Practice. Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory Method, and Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by J. W. Judge and L. Sebastian, pp. 19-59. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver.

211 Kravchenko, Alexandra N., Donald G. Bullock, and Charles W. Boast 2000 Joint Mulifractal Analysis of Crop Yield and Terrain Slope. Agronomy Journal 92:1279-1290.

Kuhn, Robert D. 1994 The Cromwell Site (NYSM 1121): Including a Brief Treatise on Early Seventeenth-Century Mohawk Pottery Trends. The Bulletin: Journal of Archaeology for New York State 108: 29-38.

Kvamme, Kenneth 1989 Geographic Information Systems in Regional Archaeological Research and Data Management, in Archaeological Method and Theory, Michael B. Schiffer, ed. University of Arizona Press: Tucson. Pp. 139-203.

Lafitau, Joseph François 1977 Customs of the American Indians Compared with the Customs of Primitive Times, vol. 2. Edited and translated by William N. Fenton and Elizabeth L. Moore. The Champlain Society, Toronto.

LaFrance, Albert D. and Ferdinand LaFrance 1976 An Onondaga Chance Phase Site: Carley II. Beauchamp Chapter NYSAA Bulletin 1(1).

Livi-Bacci, Massimo 1992 A Concise History of World Population. Translated by C. Ipsen. Blackwell, Cambridge, Uk.

Llobera, Marcos 2003 Extending GIS-based visual analysis: the concept of visualscapes. International Journal of Geographic Information Science 17(1):25-48.

Lock, Gary R. and Trevor M. Harris 1996 Danebury Revisited: An English Iron Age Hillfort in a Digital Landscape, in Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. M. Aldenderfer and H. Maschner eds. Oxford University Press: New York. Pp. 214-240.

MacDonald, Robert I. 1986 The Coleman Site (AiHd-7): a Late Prehistoric Iroquoian Village in the Waterloo Region. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University.

Martin, Calvin 1978 Keepers of the Game: Indian-Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade. University of California, Los Angeles.

212 Maschner, Herbert D.G. 1996 The Politics of Settlement Choice on the Northwest Coast: Cognition, GIS, and Coastal Landscapes, in Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. M. Aldenderfer and H. Maschner eds. Oxford University Press: New York. Pp. 175-189.

McDowell-Loudan, Ellis E. (editor) 1984 Reports and Comments on Indian Hill II. Beauchamp Chapter NYSAA 4(1).

Miller, Charles L. 1994 Lamoka Phase Settlement Pattern in the Genesee River Valley. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University at New York, Buffalo.

Milner, George R. 1980 Epidemic Disease in the Postcontact Southeast: A Reappraisal, in Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 5:39-56.

1986 Mississippian Period Population Density in a Segment of the Central Mississippi River Valley, in American Antiquity 51(2):227-238.

2004 The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. Thames and Hudson, London.

Milner, George R., David G. Anderson, and Michael T. Smith 2001 The Distribution of Eastern Woodlands People, in Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400-1700, edited by D. Brose, C. Cowan, and R. Mainfort, Jr., pp. 9-18. Smithsonian, Washington.

Milner, George R., James W. Wood, and Jesper L. Boldsen 2008 Paleodemography, in Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton, M. Anne Katzenberg and Shelley R. Saunders editors, pp. 467-496. Wiley-Liss: New York.

Mook, Maurice A. 1944 The Aboriginal Population of Tidewater Virginia in American Anthropologist. 46(2):193-208.

Mooney, James 1928 The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico, edited by J.R. Swanton. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 80(7), Washington, D.C.

Morgan, Lewis Henry 1962[1851] League of the Ho-De-No-Sau-Nee, Iroquois. Corinth Books, New York.

Naroll, Raoul 1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population, in American Antiquity 27:587-589.

213

Neel, James V. 1970 Lessons from a “Primitive” People, in Science, New Series 170(3960):815-822.

Neitzel, Jill E. and David G. Anderson 1999 Multiscalar Analyses of Middle-Range Societies; Comparing the Late Prehistoric Southwest and Southeast, in Great Towns and Regional Polities in the Prehistoric American Southwest and Southeast, edited by Jill E. Neitzel, pp. 243-254. Amerind Foundation New World Study Series 3, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Netting, Robert McC. 1993 Smallholders, householders: farm families and the ecology of intensive, sustainable agriculture. Stanford University, Stanford.

Niemczycki, Mary Ann Palmer 1984 The Origin and Development of the Seneca and Cayuga Tribes of New York State. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records No. 17.

O’Callahan, E.B. 1850-51 The Documentary History of the State of New York. Weed and Parsons, New York.

1855 Expedition of Marquis de Denonville against the Seneca, in The Documentary History of the State of New York. Vol. 9, pp. 358-369, Albany.

O’Shea, John 1989 The role of wild resources in small-scale agricultural systems: tales from the lakes and plains, in Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty, edited by Paul Halstead and John O’Shea. Cambridge University, New York.

O’Sullivan, David and David J. Unwin 2003 Geographic Information Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.

Paine, Richard R. 1992 Population Dynamics at Copan, Honduras, A.D. 450-1250: A Study in Archaeological Demography. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Palkovich, Ann M. 1985 Historic Population of the Eastern Pueblos: 1540-1910, in Journal of Anthropological Research 41(4):401-426.

214 Parker, Arthur C. 1922 The Archaeological History of New York. 2 vols. New York State Museum Bulletin 235-238, Albany.

Peterson, James 1958 The Olcott Site and Palisades. Chenango Archaeological Society 1(3):1-6.

Peterson, Mark 1991 Site 154-7-1. In IGTS Phase 2 Archaeological Evaluations, Volume 2, The Mohawk/Schoharie Region. Prepared for the Iroquois Gas Transmission System by Garrow and Associates, Inc, Atlanta, GA.

Pratt, Peter P. n.d. Typescript of notes describing Oneida archaeological sites, probably done in the late 1950’s. Pratt gave these to Theodore Whitney who copied them for Monte Bennett who gave them to the Legal Department, Oneida Nation, in 2001. The reference here is based on summaries provided by Anthony Wonderley, representative of the Oneida Nation.

1963 A Heavily Stockaded Late Prehistoric Oneida Iroquois Settlement. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 33(1-2):56-92.

1976 Archaeology of the Oneida Iroquois, Vol. 1. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology 1. George’s Mills, NH.

Prezzano, Susan C. 1992 Longhouse, Village, and Palisade: Community Patterns at the Iroquois Southern Door. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton.

Ramenofsky, Ann F. 1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Ramenofsky, Ann F., Alicia K. Wilbur, and Anne C. Stone 2003 Native American Disease History: Past, Present, and Future Directions. World Archaeology 35(2):241-257.

Renfrew, Colin 1979 Investigations in Orkney. Society of Antiquaries: London.

Richter, Daniel K. 1992 The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

215 Ricklis, Robert 1966 A Preliminary Report on some Late Prehistoric and Early Historic Onondaga Sites Near Syracuse, New York. New York State Archaeological Association, Morgan Chapter, Newsletter 6:1-11.

RMSC = unpublished site files on record at the Rochester Museum and Science Center

Ritchie, William A. 1965 The Archaeology of New York State. The American Museum of Natural Hisory, Garden City.

Ritchie, William A. and Robert Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service, memoir 20. The State University of New York Education Department, Albany.

Russell, W.M.S. 1988 Population, swidden farming and the tropical environment, in Population & Environment 10(2):77-94

Saunders, Lorraine P. 1987 Occupation Interval and Mortality Rate: A Methodological Approach, in The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 95:18-22.

Schacht, Robert M. 1981 Estimating Past Population Trends, in Annual Review of Anthropology 10:119- 140.

Schoff, Harry n.d. Beal Site 1949. Unpublished field notes.

Schoolcraft, H.R. 1847 Notes on the Iroquois: Or Contributions of American History, Antiquities, and General Ethnology. Erastus H. Pease, Albany.

Schroeder, Sissel 1999 Maize Productivity in the Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains of North America, in American Antiquity 64(3):499-516.

Schwarcz, Henry P., Jerry Melbye, M. Anne Katzenberg 1985 Stable Isotopes in Human Skeletons of Southern Ontario: Reconstructing Palaeodiet, in Journal of Archaeological Science 12:187-206.

216 Sempowski, Martha L. 2001 Summary of Archaeological Data from the Richmond Mills Site. Unpublished report from the Genessee River Valley Cultural Affiliation Project.

2007 Archaeology Workshop on Iroquois Site Chronology presented at the Conference on Iroquois Research, Rensseleaerville, NY.

Sempowski, Martha L., and Lorraine P. Saunders 2001 Dutch Hollow and Factory Hollow: The Advent of Dutch Trade Among the Seneca, Parts I-III. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records No. 24.

Snow, Dean R. 1986 Historic Mohawk Settlement Patterns. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Archaeological Association, Toronto, Ontario.

1991 Mohawk, in The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 102:34-39.

1994 The Iroquois. Blackwell, New York.

1995a Mohawk Valley Archaeology: The Sites. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, No. 23, Matson Museum of Anthropology. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

1995b Mohawk Valley Archaeology: The Collections. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, No. 23, Matson Museum of Anthropology. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

1995c Microchronology and Demographic Evidence Relating to the Size of Pre- Colombian North American Indian Populations, in Science 268:1601-1604.

1995d Migration in Prehistory: The Northern Iroquoian Case, in American Antiquity 60(1):59-79.

1997 The Architecture of Iroquois Longhouses, in Northeast Anthropology 53:61-84.

2000 Setting Demographic Limits: The North American Case, presented at UISPP in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

2007 Personal communication

2008 Personal communication

217 Snow, Dean R. and Kim M. Lanphear 1988 European Contact and Indian Depopulation in the Northeast: The Timing of the First Epidemics, in Ethnohistory 35(1): 15-33.

Snow, Dean R. and William A. Starna 1989 Sixteenth-Century Depopulation: A View from the Mohawk Valley. American Anthropologist 91:142-149.

Snow, Dean R., Charles T. Gehring, and William A. Starna (editors) 1996 A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, 1634-1635. In Mohawk Country: Early Narratives about a Native People, pp. 1-13. Syracuse University, Syracuse.

Sohrweide, A. Gregory 2001 Onondaga Longhouses in the Late Seventeenth Century on the Weston Site. The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 117:1-24.

2006 Personal communication

n.d. Unpublished map of the Indian Castle site. Map in the author’s possession.

Sokal, Robert R. and F. James Rohlf 1995 Biometry, 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

Starna, William A. 1980 Mohawk Iroquois Populations: A Revision. Ethnohistory 27:371-382.

Starna, William A., George R. Hamell, and William L. Butts 1984 Northern Iroquoian Horticulture and Insect Infestation: A Cause for Village Removal. Ethnohistory 31(3): 197-207.

Stone, Glenn 1996 Settlement Ecology: The Social and Spatial Organization of Kofyar Agriculture. University of Arizona, Tucson.

Sykes, Clark M. 1980 Swidden Horticulture and Iroquoian Settlement, in Archaeology of Eastern North America 8: 45-52.

Tanner, Tyree 1978 The Lot 18 Site. Beauchamp Chapter NYSAA Bulletin 3(1).

2001 The Indian Castle Site at Onondaga. Beauchamp Chapter NYSAA Bulletin 8(1):1- 50.

218 Thornton, Russell 1987 American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London.

1997 Aboriginal North American Population Decline and Rates of Decline, ca. A.D. 1500-1900. Current Anthropology 38(2):310-315.

Thornton, Russell and Joan Marsh Thornton 1981 Estimating Prehistoric American Indian Population Size For United States Area: Implications of the Nineteenth Century Population Decline and Nadir. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55:47-53.

Thornton, Russell, Tim Miller, and Jonathan Warren 1991 American Indian Population Recovery Following Smallpox Epidemics, in American Anthropologist 93(1):28-45.

Thornton, Russell, Jonathan Warren and Tim Miller 1992 Depopulation in the Southeast after 1492, in Disease and Demography in the Americas, edited by J.W. Verano and D.H. Ubelaker, pp. 187-196. Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.

Trigger, Bruce D. 1969 The Huron: Farmers of the North. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Montreal.

1976 The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660. 2 vols. McGill-Queens University, Montreal.

1990 Huron: Farmers of the North. Second edition. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.

Tuck, James A. 1971 Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology. Syracuse University Press: Syracuse.

USDA 2006 Digital General Soil Map of U.S. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort Worth.

Upham, Steadman 1986 Smallpox and Climate in the American Southwest, in American Anthropologist 88:115-128.

1992 Population and Spanish Contact in the Southwest, in Disease and Demography in the Americas, edited by J.W. Verano and D.H. Ubelaker, pp. 223-236. Smithsonian, Washington, D.C.

219 van den Bogaert, Hermen M. 1988[1634-5] A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, 1634-1635. Translated and edited by C.T. Gehring and W.A. Starna, pp. 1-13. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.

1996 A Journey into Mohawk and Oneida Country, in In Mohawk Country: Early Narratives about a Native People. Edited by Dean R. Snow, Charles T. Gehring, and William Starna. Pp. 1-13. Syracuse University, Syracuse.

Vandrei, Charles E. 1986 A Preliminary Report on the 1983 and 1984 Excavations at Bosley’s Mills, HNE 57- 3: A Seventeenth Century Seneca Iroquois Community. Unpublished. Prepared for The Rock Foundation and the Research Division of the Rochester Museum and Science Center.

1987 Observations on Seneca Settlement in the Early Historic Period, in The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 95:8-17.

Warrick, Gary R. 1990 A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 900-1650. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.

2000 The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario, in Journal of World Prehistory 14(4): 415-465.

2003 European Infectious Disease and Depopulation of the Wendat-Tionontaté (Huron- Petun), in World Archaeology 35(2):258-275.

2008 A Population History of the Huron-Petun, A.D. 500-1650. Cambridge University, New York.

Weiskotten, Daniel H. 1989 Unpublished map of Diable site.

1994a Unpublished map of Vaillancourt site.

1994b Unpublished map of Stone Quarry site.

1995 Unpublished letter to the Cazenovia Planning Board.

Wheatley, David 1995 Cumulative viewshed analysis: A GIS-based method for investigating intervisibility, and its archaeological application. In Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective, edited by Gary Lock and Zoran Stancic, pp. 171-185. Taylor and Francis, London.

220 Wheatley, David and Mark Gillings 2002 Spatial Technology and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, London.

Whitney, Theodore 1964 Thurston, Onneyuttehage, Msv 1, in NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 6(1).

1967 The Bach Site, in NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 8(4):1-10.

1970 The Buyea Site, Ond13-3, in The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 50:1-14.

1971 The Olcott Site, Msv-3, in NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 12(3):1-27.

1990 Grooved Boulders: A Compilation and Update as of 1990, in NYSAA Chenango Chapter Bulletin 23(4).

Wilshusen, Richard H. and Glenn D. Stone 1990 An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective on Soils, in World Archaeology 22(1):104- 114.

Wonderley, Anthony n.d. Inventory of Oneida Archaeological Sites. Unpublished compilation of information gathered on all known Oneida archaeological sites.

2006 Archaeological Research at the Oneida Vaillancourt Site, in The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 122:1-26.

Wood, James W., Darryl J. Holman, Kenneth M. Weiss, Anne V. Buchanan, and Belinda LeFor 1992 Hazard Models for Human Population Biology, in Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 35: 43-87.

Wray, Charles F. n.d.(a) The Beal Site, Victor, New York. Unpublished field notes of excavations by Charles F. Wray, Harry L. Schoff, and Donald Cameron, 1949-1951.

n.d.(b) Field Notes of Excavations at the Beal Site by Charles Wray and Robert Graham, 1958-1961.

Wray, Charles F., Martha L. Sempowski, Lorraine P. Saunders, and Gian Carlo Cervone 1987 The Adams and Culbertson Sites. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records No. 19.

221 Wray, Charles F., Martha L. Sempowski, and Lorraine P. Saunders 1991 Tram and Cameron: Two Early Contact Era Seneca Sites. Rochester Museum and Science Center, Research Records No. 21.

Wright, James V. 1974 The Nodwell Site. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 22, Ottawa

1995 Three Dimensional Reconstructions of Iroquoian Longhouses: A Comment, in Archaeology of Eastern North America 23:9-21.

Wright, Milton J. 1986 The Uren Site AfHd-3: An Analysis and Reappraisal of the Uren Substage Type Site. Monographs in Ontario Archaeology 2. Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto.

Wykoff, William M. 1988 Iroquoian Prehistory and Climate Change: Notes for Empirical Studies of the Eastern Woodlands. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca.

222 Appendix A: Description of Haudenosaunee Sites

This appendix contains brief descriptions of the setting, history of archaeological research, ethnohistoric information, and archaeological data recovered at the 125 village sites used in this research.

Mohawk Sites

The occupation dates for the Mohawk sites come entirely from Snow’s (1995a) comprehensive survey of the Mohawk region. He defined several periods during the sixteenth and seventeenth century based on changes in material culture and historical events. He first assigned each site to one of those periods, and then determined more precise occupation dates based on radiocarbon dates and comparisons between sites in the same period.

223

Location of the 39 Mohawk settlements occupied during the AD 1500-1700 period.

Otstungo (AD 1450-1525)

The Otstungo site is perhaps the most intensively researched of all the villages built by the Mohawks. The site was constructed on a steep-sided rectangular ridge adjacent to Otstungo Creek and covers an area of 7572 m2. Given this area and the 12 m2 per person density applied to 15th and early 16th century sites, the population at Otstungo was likely around 630 individuals. This represents a significant increase from earlier

224 sites and may be a result of internal population growth and/or the consolidation of smaller sites (Snow 1995: 136). The area is well protected with the only easy point of entry being on the southeastern portion of the site. However, the soils surrounding the site are of lower quality, possibly indicating that the residents sacrificed soil productivity for the defensibility of the site (Snow 1995: 115).

The site was mapped by Ephraim Squier in 1848 and was the object of frequent and intense collection by individuals throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

(Snow 1995). Professors and students from SUNY Albany tested the site from 1984 to

1986 with shovel test pits and magnetometry. Major excavations from 1985 to 1987

uncovered a longhouse and a palisade at the entrance on the southeast side of the site along with several features including 62 hearths. Artifacts found include a large number

and variety of lithic, shell, and ceramic (containers and smoking pipes) artifacts all

supporting the interpretation of Otstungo being a large village site. Subsistence remains found include bones from various mammal, fish, and bird species, beans, maize, and nutshells (Snow 1995: 118-133).

The occupation dates for the site are based on Late Mohawk ceramic types and the lack of any key European artifact types. Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates BP of 380±50,

345±55, 415±50, 365±50, 410±50 also suggest an establishment date around AD 1450

and abandonment date of AD 1525 (Snow 1995a:29, 115).

Cayadutta (AD 1525-1545)

The Cayadutta village was constructed on a high defensible hilltop near the

Cayadutta Creek and covers an area of 8050 m2. Using the 12 m2/person ratio along with

225 this area yields a population estimate of 670 individuals (Snow 1995: 190). The north

side of the site is protected by a steep slope and two gullies run along the west and east sides of the site leaving the south side as the only exposed portion of the site. The soil surrounding the site is high quality but not ideal for growing crops (Snow 1995: 180-

181).

The site was discovered by George Chapin in 1892 and has been the object of excavation by the NYSAA for several decades. SUNY Albany archaeologists led by

Dean Snow excavated the site in 1988 and 1989. Results of excavations include identifying palisade lines, recovering palisade wood fragments, and uncovering the methods by which the defensive works were constructed. No longhouses or features,

aside from post molds, have been uncovered. Over 22,000 artifacts have been removed from the site including decorative bone and stone items, a bone harpoon, marine shell, ceramics, a turtle carapace spoon, and iron and copper items (Snow 1995: 182-189).

Late Mohawk ceramic types and the almost complete absence of key European artifact types indicate an occupation early in the AD 1525-1580 period (Snow 1995a:189).

Garoga (AD 1525-1545)

The village was constructed on a high hilltop about 11 km from the Mohawk

River and covers and area of 9876 m2 (Snow 1995: 145). Using a density of 12 m2 per

person, the population at Garoga would have been 823 individuals. This number has

been confirmed with independent population estimates of 820 from hearth counts (Snow,

1995: 164), and 796 from total longhouse length (Jones, 2006). This village more

compact compared to most 15th and 16th century Iroquois sites.

226 The southwest to northeast elongated area was well-protected by steep slopes on three sides. Similar to the Otsungo site, the only evidence of defensive palisades appears to be at the lone entry point on the southwestern side of the site. In addition, the village was constructed on less attractive soils for agriculture, and therefore the area may have been chosen primarily for its defensive qualities (Snow 1995).

The Garoga village site was first discovered in 1877 by Samuel Frey, and like other Mohawk sites has been thoroughly collected since its discovery (Snow 1995: 146).

William Ritchie and Robert Funk conducted extensive excavations from 1960 to 1964 and uncovered the remains of nine longhouses and the palisade line on the southwest side. Artifacts found at the site include ceramics, pipe fragments, chert artifacts, ground stone celts and adzes, bone and antler tools, marine shell, and copper fragments.

Subsistence remains included maize, beans, hickory nuts, hazel nuts, acorns, deer, beaver, dog, bear, and gray fox. A large number of storage pits were found at the site as well

(Snow 1995: 149-161).

The occupation dates for the site derive from European artifacts. Copper alloy kettle fragments suggest an occupation during the period AD 1525-1580. The small

amount of European artifacts and uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 300±50 BP indicate an

occupation toward the beginning of that period (Snow 1995a 29, 146).

Klock (AD 1540-1565)

The Klock village was constructed on a broad hill near the Caroga Creek and

covers an area of about 11,520 m2. Using a density of 12 m2/person, the village housed

960 individuals. This is a very similar number to the estimate of 900 calculated by Snow

227 (1995: 170) based on longhouse numbers. Like the Garoga site, the Klock site was built

on sandy soils.

The first mention of the site was reported by Donald Lenig in 1949. William

Ritchie excavated the site in 1950, and Robert Funk continued excavations in 1969 and

1970 (Snow 1995: 165). Funk uncovered a single longhouse and portions of other longhouses along with several features. Artifacts from the site include ceramics and copper objects. Subsistence remains are dominated by deer and beaver bones (Snow

1995: 166-169).

Copper alloy kettle fragments, ceramic seriation, and the absence of key artifact types indicate an occupation during the middle of the AD 1525-1580 period (Snow

1995a:165).

Smith-Pagerie (AD 1560-1580)

The Smith-Pagerie site is located on a broad hill about one kilometer from the

Garoga site 12 km from the Mohawk River. The site covers 13,200 m2 near the Caroga

Creek. Using a density of 12 m2/person, 1100 people would have lived at the Smith-

Pagerie village. Independent tests using longhouse length and average compartment

length yielded a population of 1107 (Jones, 2006). Snow (1995: 180), using a larger area

of 16,187 m2, estimated a population of 1349. individuals.

Built in the same area as Garoga and Klock, the Smith-Pagerie site also sits on

sandy and less productive soils than those found to the south near the Mohawk River.

Three sides of the site are on top of steep slopes with the east side lying on an open, flat

228 area (Snow 1995: 171-172). This side was protected with what appears to have been a

double-walled palisade (Funk and Kuhn, 2003).

The site was likely discovered by Samuel Frey in the late 19th century and

rediscovered by John Swart in the 1950’s (Snow 1995). Several impressive artifacts such

as a bone comb and a whole have been recovered during almost constant collecting at the

site. In 1968, a combined team of NYSM and SUNY Albany archaeologists conducted

extensive excavations of the site uncovering 12 longhouses, numerous features, and

evidence of the palisade. Artifacts found at the site include ceramics, bone tools and

decorative items, lithic tools, but no glass beads (Snow 1995: 175-179).

The presence of large quantities of metal artifacts compared to the Klock and

Garoga sites places the occupation during the end of the AD 1525-1580 period. The

absence of blue beads, heavy iron axes, and other key artifacts indicates the site was not

occupied after AD 1580 (Snow 1995a:179).

Chapin (AD 1580-1614)

This site lies on a gradual-sloping spit of land near a tributary of Briggs Run. The

site occupies 4500 m2 giving the village a population of 375 individuals with a density of

12 m2/person (Snow 1995: 206). Chapin represents the first set of villages in the late

1500’s that moved from the higher, more easily defended areas away from the Mohawk

River to the lower elevations and richer soils near the river. Chapin, along with Barker,

also likely represents the fissioning of the Cayadutta village into two smaller

communities. This is thought because of the smaller sizes of villages dating to this period

compared to those of the previous (Snow 1995: 200).

229 The site was discovered by Henry Wemple in the 1940’s and has been worked at

extensively since that time. NYSAA members excavated in the 1950’s and SUNY

Albany archaeologists measured the site boundaries in the late 1980’s. The site contained a variety of native and European artifacts. Sites dating to this period are the first to show frequent and sustained use of European materials. Artifacts found at the site include brass kettle fragments, an iron axe, glass beads, bone tools, ceramics, lithic tools, and shell decorative items (Snow 1995: 200-201).

The small number of European glass trade beads and brass or copper artifacts indicates an occupation during the period of AD 1580-1614. A star chevron bead suggests

that the site was occupied at the end of the period, and two radiocarbon dates were

averaged for a date of 335±35 BP. These lines of evidence indicate an occupation during

the whole of this period (Snow 1995a:201-6).

Barker (AD 1580-1614)

The Barker site is located on a small rise of land surrounded by gentle slopes.

The site covers 7700 m2 north of the Mohawk River. Using a density of 12 m2 per

person, the site would have been occupied by 640 individuals (Snow 1995: 208). As

mentioned with the Chapin site, the Barker site likely represents one of two villages built

by the previous inhabitants of the Cayadutta village. This site was also built on a less

defensible area of the valley.

There have been no formal excavations of the Barker site, but years of collecting

allowed Donald Rumrill, avocational archaeologist, the delineate the boundaries. Brass

artifacts, glass beads, shell beads, and various other artifacts have been uncovered at the

230 site. The European artifacts again point to the site being one of the first where people were obtaining these foreign objects on a regular basis (Snow 1995: 207-208).

Very few artifacts have been excavated from the site, but those that have indicate an occupation during the period of AD 1580-1614. This includes a small quantity of

European items (Snow 1995a:208). Snow also assumed the placement of the Barker site in the site chronology based on its size relative to previous and successive sites.

England’s Woods #1 (AD 1580-1614)

The England’s Woods #1 site lies in an open area and covers an area of 7850 m2.

Using a 12 m2 per person density ratio, the site had a likely population of 655 individuals

(Snow 1995: 216). Unlike the Chapin and Barker sites, there is no clear precedent to this site. The landscape around the site is not ideal for defense and the soils are not ideal for agricultural productivity (Snow 1995).

The England’s Woods #1 site was likely discovered by Samuel Frey, and the site has been known to collectors for over a century. SUNY Albany archaeologists surveyed the site and determined a minimum diameter of 100m for the circular site. No longhouses have been uncovered, but several pit features, thought to be burials, were mapped in the 1930’s. Almost 7,000 artifacts have been removed from the site. Among the collections are bone artifacts, brass fragments and points, brass beads, glass beads,

ceramics, chert and quartz tools, and shell decorative items. Carbonized maize kernels were also recovered at the site (Snow 1995: 209-212).

The glass beads found at the site indicate and occupation during the AD 1580-

1614 period. Earlier monochrome black, white, and blue beads are found along with later

231 star chevrons and polychrome beads, which appeared after Hudson’s voyage in 1609

(Snow 1995a:213).

Rice’s Woods (AD 1580-1614)

The Rice’s Woods village was built on a low ridge with adequate, but not ideal soils. The area of the site was roughly calculated as 11,800 m2 from aerial photographs

and topographical considerations. This yields a very rough population estimate of 983

individuals using 12 m2/person for the density of occupation (Snow 1995: 227).

The site was discovered prior to 1900, and has been collected since that time.

There have been no formal surveys of the site and the only excavations have focused on the cemetery locus. Sixteen graves and associated artifacts were excavated and housed at the New York State Museum. Almost 600 artifacts exist from the site including bone combs, marine shell, Basque axes, an iron sword, an iron arrow point, and over 2000 glass beads (associated with the burials). Very few subsistence remains have been uncovered or recorded at the site (Snow 1995: 220-230).

Glass beads found at the site suggests that occupation there occurred after 1609.

Some beads suggest a post-1626 date, but they are found in burial contexts and likely

were buried after the site was abandoned. Compared to artifacts found at sites occupied

during the AD 1614-1626 period, the artifacts at Rice’s Woods are earlier. This indicates that the site predates that period (Snow 1995a:227).

232 Van der Werken (AD 1580-1614)

The Van der Werken site lies on a low exposed plot of land in the Schoharie

Valley. It is now open agricultural land that lies just north of a high upland ridge

(Peterson 1991). This site is an aberration for the period because it is the only site that

lies outside of the Mohawk Valley. There is almost a 100 year gap between the Van der

Werken site and the previous Mohawk sites in Schoharie County. The site covers a

minimum of 5220 m2. Using the 12 m2/person density ratio, the village housed around

435 individuals (Snow 1995: 238). Van der Werken lies on productive soils near the

flood-prone Schoharie Creek.

The site was discovered during the archaeological investigations for the Iroquois

Gas pipeline that was constructed in 1991. It has been well protected and appears to be completely below the plow zone. No evidence of habitations was found; radiocarbon dates place the occupation of the village in the mid-1600’s (Peterson 1991). Several hearth-like features were found at the site. Artifacts at the site include several potsherds, pipe fragments, a rolled copper bead, chert flakes, and a large number of fire-cracked rocks. Almost 4,000 bone fragments from various animals were recovered along with maize and other botanical remains (Peterson 1991: 1). The presence of maize may point to the site being a small village and not a hamlet (Snow 1995: 236-237).

There is very little evidence from the site, but a European-made copper bead and two radiocarbon dates suggest an occupation during the period of AD 1580-1614 (Snow

1995a:237).

233 Martin (AD 1614-1626)

The Martin site was a village built on a terrace on sandy soil near (<0.5 km) the

Mohawk River and was likely the re-combining of the previous Barker and Chapin sites

(Snow 1995: 243). The site covers 13,100 m2, which yields a population of 1092 individuals (Snow 1995: 249). The sandy soils underlying the site are not ideal, but still productive for agricultural activities. This. The site is believed to be the one mentioned in van den Bogaert’s notes as the village abandoned by the Mohawks after attacks by the

Mohicans. After the occupation of this site, Mohawk communities moved to the south side of the river and further to the west.

The site was likely discovered around the turn of the nineteenth century, and various collectors have worked at the site over the last 100 years. Various NYSAA members excavated at the site and a SUNY Albany crew measured the boundaries of the site with the help of Donald Rumrill. Several individuals claim to have found evidence of longhouses, but these have been unconfirmed. Several ceramic sherds, glass beads, iron tools, brass and copper artifacts, bone decorative items, and chert Madison points were found at the site (Snow 1995: 246-249).

Star chevrons, gooseberry beads, and flush eyes are all bead types found at the site. These are all diagnostic of the AD 1614-1626 period. European ceramics suggest an occupation around 1620 or later, and diagnostic artifacts from the successive time period are absent from the site (Snow 1995a:249).

234 Wagner’s Hollow (AD 1614-1626)

The Wagner’s Hollow village was built on a well-defined terrace about 3 km

north of the Mohawk River and near Caroga Creek. Unlike the previous sites, the

Wagner’s Hollow site is protected on three sides by steep slopes. In addition, the village was located close to productive Mohawk silt loam soils. However, the soils immediately

under and adjacent to the site are not ideal (Snow 1995: 266-267). The site covers an

area of 17,000 m2. This area indicates a population of 1425 people given a density of 12

m2/person.

The location of the Wagner’s Hollow site has been known for over a century and

several excavations have taken place at the site. Donald Lenig excavated from 1937 to

1948 (Snow 1995: 268). Audrey Sublett, Marian White, and James Tuck conducted an

excavation during the summer of 1967. The burial locus of the site was also heavily

looted throughout this time (Snow 1995: 268).

Around 1600 artifacts have been removed from the Wagner’s Hollow site. These

include bone combs, ceramics, iron axes, iron knifes, rolled copper tubes, a matchlock

serpentine, shell beads, and glass beads (Snow 1995: 271).

Most artifacts found at the site postdate 1609 and some 1614, and the matchlock

serpentine is diagnostic of the AD 1614-1626 period.

Briggs Run (AD 1614-1626)

The Briggs Run site is located less than a kilometer from the Mohawk River on a

raised spit of land between two streams, Briggs Run and an unnamed tributary. The

village was built on 11,500 m2 of land in what is now an open setting (Snow 1995: 250).

235 This area in conjunction with a density of 12 m2/person yields an estimated population of

958 individuals (Snow 1995: 259). The soils around the site are sandy, but productive.

The precise date of discovery of the archaeological remains of the Briggs Run site is unknown. The site has been excavated several times by amateur archaeologists and was measured by SUNY Albany archaeologists, but not excavated. No longhouses or features have been recorded from the site. There is a burial loci that has been extensively collected by individuals seeking mortuary offerings (Snow 1995). There are 838 artifacts documented from the Briggs Run site (Snow 1995: 251). These include copper projectile points, marine shell, glass beads, brass and copper fragments, and iron nails and utilitarian items (Snow 1995: 251-254).

The large quantities of European goods at the site suggest it was occupied after the establishment of Fort Nassau by the Dutch in 1614. Gooseberry beads and small white beads with gray cores, which are found at the site, were likely not available until after

1614. Also, copper pipe liners, helical copper strips on thongs, and hawk bells are found at the site and are diagnostic to the AD 1614-1626 period. Further, kaolin pipes, rum

bottles, musket balls, and gunflints of the successive period are not present. Finally, two

radiocarbon dates support the above dates (Snow 1995a:252-9).

Coleman-Van Duesen (AD 1614-1626)

The Coleman-Van Duesen village was built on a large hilltop three kilometers north of the Mohawk River. Based on aerial photography, the hilltop area is just under

42,000 m2, but the site does not cover this entire area. Population estimates are difficult

because the site has not been measured. Snow (1995: 265) estimated the population at

236 around 1250 individuals based on the notion that Rice’s Woods was the predecessor and

Van den Bogaert’s “Schanidisse” was the successor and that the Coleman-Van Duesen population fell somewhere in between. The number of 1250 was based on a growth rate of 1.25 per 25-year generation with the Rice’s Woods population as the starting

population. The site lies on good soils and is located within 100 meters of a source of

water.

This site was known around the turn of the nineteenth century, but was referred to

as the Stone Arabia site. Walk-overs have been conducted on the site, but there has been

no controlled excavations at the request of the landowner. Several artifacts were

recovered from the surface surveys. They include brass pieces, copper points and kettles,

copper decorative items, kaolin pipe fragments, chert projectile points, glass beads,

musket balls, and iron axes (Snow 1995: 261-265).

Most of the artifacts at the site postdate 1614. The artifact assemblage seems to

place the site later than the Rice’s Woods site. Musket balls, rum bottle fragments, kaolin

pipe fragments, a brass pipe liner, and a clasp knife all indicate occupation after 1624.

However, there is no evidence that the site was occupied after 1626 when all Mohawk

villages moved to the south side of the Mohawk River to avoid Mahican attacks (Snow

1995a:265).

Cromwell (AD 1626-1635)

The Cromwell village was built on a broad hill on the southern side of the

Mohawk River. This site is believed to be the remains of the Onekahoncka village

described by Van den Bogaert in 1635 (1988: 4-5). The site covers 49,480 m2 of land.

237 Based on Van den Bogaert’s writings, Snow (1995: 285) estimates the population of the site at 2160 people. With the aforementioned area, the density of occupation was reduced to 20 m2/person similar to pre-AD 1550 Iroquois sites. If the 12 m2/person density

continued, the site would have housed over 4,000 people, a number that cannot be

accounted for with previous populations and normal growth rates. Even when

considering the possibility of immigrants into the Mohawk Valley, this number remains

too high based on the evidence at hand. The site lies very close to the main channel of

the Mohawk River and the highly productive soils that surround it.

The date of initial discovery is unknown, and the site has been the subject of

limited archaeological work. SUNY Albany conducted an aerial survey of the site to

determine site size, and excavations have been carried out by the Mohawk-Caughnawaga

Museum. No structures of features have been uncovered, but over 2,300 artifacts have

been removed (Snow 1995: 283). These artifacts include iron knives, iron nails, scrap

brass, glass beads, Iroquois ceramics, chert projectile points, a quartz projectile point, and

a small number of clay pipe fragments. Subsistence remains include bones from deer,

beaver, bear, turkey and elk (Kuhn 1994; Snow 1995).

Kaolin pipe fragments and rat-tail knives found at the site suggest the site was

occupied after 1626. The absence of wampum beads and gun parts indicate the site was

not occupied after 1635 (Snow 1995a:284).

Yates (AD 1626-1635)

The Yates site was a small village, or hamlet, built near the Mohawk River on the

southern side. The site was partial destroyed by gravel mining, and, therefore, the size of

238 the site is unknown. However, for demographic purposes we can rely on Van den

Bogaert’s description of the Canawarode site, which is most likely this Yates site. Van

den Bogaert metioned six longhouses at the site allowing for around 360 people (Snow

1995:288). The soils around the site are productive loams that would have been well-

suiting for maize agriculture (Snow 1995).

The site was discovered by Henry Wemple, and the only significant work done at

the site was conducted as it was being mined. This salvage work produced artifacts,

which have not been located. Some artifacts did survive in the collection of Gilbert

Hagerty. These included glass beads, nails, and brass and iron artifacts.

The presence of unfinished tubular beads and kaolin pipe fragments suggest an

occupation during the AD 1626-1635 period. The absence of gun parts supports this

placement (Snow 1995a:288).

Brown (AD 1626-1635)

The Brown site village was built on a high hill that overlooks the Mohawk Valley

from the south. The site is likely the village of Schanidisse visited and described by Van

den Bogaert in his journal (Snow 1995). It was the third largest village at that time

behind Tenotoge (the Failing site) and Onekagoncka (the Cromwell site). Not much is

known about the site, but the available land for village construction was 35,000 m2. Van den Bogaert describes Schanidisse as having 32 longhouses. Using ethnohistoric data on average number of hearths per longhouse, the village would have had 192 hearths. With average Iroquois family size estimated at five people per family and two families per hearth, the population at the Schanidisse would have been 1920 people (Snow 1995:293).

239 The site lies on and around productive silt loams that would have been beneficial to agriculture (Snow 1995).

The location of the Brown site has been known for over a century, but no serious excavations have ever taken place there. The site has been surveyed by both Donald

Rumrill and researchers from the University at Albany. No structures or features have been uncovered, but artifacts do exist from the Brown site. These include bone combs, glass beads, marine shell beads, iron axes, gun parts, musket balls, bullet molds, and sword fragments. The glass beads and marine shell are diagnostic artifacts that helped to narrow the dates of the site (Snow 1995:290). In addition, it is the only known site that fits the description of the Schanidisse village in Van den Bogaert’s writings.

This site is the only viable candidate for the village of Schandisse visited by Van den Bogaert in 1634. This places it firmly in the AD 1626-1635 period.

Failing (AD 1626-1635)

The Failing site was built on a large hill overlooking the Mohawk River to the north. The site was completely destroyed by the construction of the New York State

Thruway in the 1950’s. Because the site has been destroyed, determining the exact limits is impossible. Snow (1995) believes the site was somewhere around four hectares in extent. Any demographic information about the site must come from Van den Bogaert journal. The Failing site was likely the village of Tenotoge, which the Dutch emissary described as having 55 houses. Using the same logic as for the Brown site, Tenotoge contained 330 hearths, and a population of 3300 people. Snow (1995:294) indicated that this was a village occupied by Oneida immigrants and Mohawks, which explains the

240 rather large population. The inhabitants constructed the village on and near productive

silt loam soils that would have been good for growing maize and other crops.

The site was likely unknown until the Thruway construction disrupted the area.

Donald Lenig and Earl Casler attempted to salvage material as soil and subsoil were

being removed from the site. However, they did not manage to salvage much. The Lenig

collection is not available for study, so little is known about the site. The small amount

of information on the recovered artifacts mentions only pottery. The recovered pottery

includes a high frequency of Thurston Horizontal, dominant at Oneida sites of the time,

and very low frequencies of Cromwell Incised and Garoga Incised, as are found at the

contemporary Cromwell site (Snow 1995:295). This distribution of pottery styles led

Snow to suggest the presence of Oneida immigrants.

The high frequency of Oneida pottery styles in conjunction with Champlain’s account (Champlain 1907:314) indicate that the site was occupied after 1615. The Failing site is also the best possible location for the Tenotoge village visited by Van den Bogaert in 1634. This places the site firmly in the AD 1626-1634 period.

Bauder (AD 1635-1646)

The Bauder village was built on a spit of land overlooking Yatesville Creek, south of

the Mohawk River. The site occupies an area of 8700 m2. Snow (1995:308-309) used a

density of 12 m2/person to estimate the population size at 725. In addition, Van den

Bogaert (1988) indicates that the Schatsyerosy village contained 12 longhouses. With the

resulting hearth count of 72, the population at the site would have been 720 (Snow

1995:309). This is almost identical to the number obtained with the site area estimate.

241 The site lies within 100 meters of a reliable water source and is built on productive soils

(Snow 1995).

The exact date of discovery is unknown, but the site was known to local collectors in

the late-1800’s. No formal excavations have been carried out at the site, but it has been surveyed by both Donald Rumrill and University at Albany archaeologists (Snow 1995).

No structures, features, or burials have been found at the site. There are several artifact collections associated with the Bauder site, which include glass beads, a catlinite bead,

European gunflints, a musket ball mold, lead sprue, gun parts, knife and sword fragments, scissors, iron axes, kaolin pipe fragments, brass projectile points, iron mouth harps, and iron nails (Snow 1995).

The trade pipes found here indicate that the site was occupied at the same time as the Rumrill-Naylor, Bauder, and Oak Hill #1 sites, during the AD 1635-1646 period. They

all lack the diagnostic EB pipe that was introduced after 1646. All of the diagnostic

artifacts point to occupation after 1635. This includes evidence of shot casting, tubular

wampum, and iron mouth harps (Snow 1995a:307-8).

Rumrill-Naylor (AD 1635-1640)

The Rumrill-Naylor site was built on a terrace overlooking the Mohawk Valley to the

north. The site lies a short distance to the west of the Bauder site and within 50 meters of a source of water (Snow 1995). In addition, the site was built on productive soils. The

Rumrill-Naylor site covers 13,400 m2. Population estimates derive from historic accounts of the site. This is believed to be the site of the Canagere village visited by Van den Bogaert (1988:5, 35). He described the site as having 16 houses and gives the

242 lengths of the houses (1988:6). This suggests that the site had 73 hearths, which results in a population of 730 people (Snow 1995:322). The artifact density and lack of any evidence of longhouse repair suggests that the site was only occupied for a short period of time. The most likely scenario is that the village of Canagere was built after the smallpox epidemic of 1634 to house the surviving community members. The population continued to drop during the late 1630’s, and the community eventually moved to another village named Oneugi8ré by Isaac Jogues (JR 29:51), which is most likely the Van

Evera-McKinney site, and lived there until the mid-1640’s (Snow 1995:321-322).

The site was discovered by Donald Rumrill in the 1970’s was surveyed by him during this decade and the 1980’s. University at Albany archaeologists conducted excavations in 1984. Rumrill noted that there was no evidence of a palisade (agreeing with Van den Bogaert’s description of Canagere) and defined the boundary of the site based on surface artifact scatters. University at Albany students then mapped those boundaries with Rumrill’s help during the excavations of 1984 (Snow 1995). One and a half longhouses were uncovered during these excavations along with several hearth and storage pit features (Snow 1995). 744 artifacts were excavated from the site. These include glass beads, brass fragments, brass projectile points, ceramic sherds, ceramic pipe fragments, chert bifaces and debitage, iron tools and fragments, kaolin pipe fragments, lead shot and slag, and Herkimer quartz crystals (Snow 1995:314-315).

Trade pipes indicate that this site was occupied at the same time as the Bauder and Oak Hill #1 sites. Like Bauder, the diagnostic EB pipe is missing. The bead assemblage also closely resembles that of the Bauder site.The presence of gun parts, lead sprues, lead pigs, and other evidence of guns and shot casting place the site in the AD

243 1635-1646 period. It is also believed to be the site of Oneugi8ré mentioned by Jogues in

1646 (Snow 1995a:320).

Prospect Hill (AD 1635-1640)

The Prospect Hill site is located west of the Mohawk River and just south of

Otsquago Creek. The was built on and around productive silt loam soils. There are two occupation components to the site, one from AD 1635-1646 and another from AD 1693-

1755. The area of the first occupation site is undetermined because the site has been largely destroyed by modern residential construction (Snow 1995). Demographic information from the Prospect Hill site comes from the Van den Bogaert journal. This site was likely the village of Osquage visited by the Dutch emissary in AD 1634-1635.

During his visit, he recorded nine longhouses at the site. This extrapolates to 54 hearths and an estimate of 540 people living at the site (Snow 1995:469).

The site was largely destroyed before any archaeological discovery could take place. Most information from the site comes from documentary resources and the

Galligan #2 site, which is an associated cemetery site. Needless to say, no surveys or excavations have been conducted at the Prospect Hill site. Only eight artifacts have been recorded as originating at the site. They include a ceramic pipe fragment, five Wampum beads, a quahog shell item, and a glass bead (Snow 1995:461).

This is one of the most problematic dates in the Mohawk sequence. There appears to have been two occupations at the site during the seventeenth century, one during the

AD 1635-1646 period and one during the AD 1693-1712 period (Snow 1995a:469).

244 Sand Hill #1 (AD 1635-1640)

The Sand Hill #1 site is a multi-component site with several loci located just west of the Mohawk River near the current town of Fort Plain. The village was built on sandy, gravelly soils very near to a reliable source of water. The site was largely destroyed by the construction of Route 5S and by gravel mining for the construction of the New York

State Thruway. There are believed to have been three occupations at the Sand Hill #1 with one of them likely being the village of Cawaoge mentioned by Van den Bogaert

(Snow 1995). The area of the site is undetermined, so all demographic data must come from documentary resources. Van den Bogaert notes the presence of 14 longhouses at the site. With six hearths per house and ten people per hearth, there were likely 840 people residing at Cawaoge in AD 1635 (Snow 1995:333).

The site was initially discovered in 1925 during a project to widen Route 5S.

Several excavations took place shortly after the site’s discovery. More excavations were conducted as mining was taking place in the 1960’s and the most recent work was conducted in the mid-1970’s (Snow 1995). No structures were found at the site, but several burials were dug in the two cemetery loci associated with the Cawaoge village component. Around 2200 artifacts are recorded from the Sand Hill #1 site. They include a book, glass beads, gun parts, catlinite beads, bone tools, bone combs, both ceramic and kaolin pipe fragments, a fossil snail, several ceramic vessels, and projectile points (Snow

1995:329-332).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the idea that this is the Cawaoge village visited by Van den Bogaert in 1634-5 (Snow 1995a:332-3).

245 Van Evera-McKinney (AD 1640-1646)

The Van Evera-McKinney village site was built on a bluff over looking the

Mohawk Valley to the North. It lies within 200 meters of a source of water and was built

on and around productive silt loam soils. The site covers 10,100 m2. A density of 12

m2/person provides an estimate of 841 individuals at the site. A density of 20 m2/person provides an estimate of 505 individuals at the site. Snow (1995:325) suggests that

Mohawk population decline was still occurring at this time, and therefore the density of the village was likely that of the latter. Since this site is likely the successor to the

Rumrill-Naylor site as previously mentioned the population would have decreased from

730 to 505 people, if this was the case. The movement between the two sites is indicated archaeologically, but murkier in the documentary record. This is because the community likely named successive villages the by same name, and then different Europeans heard the same name differently. Thus, Canagere is Oneugi8ré. The difference can be attributed to the different ears of Van den Bogaert and Jogues.

The Van Evera-McKinney site was discovered sometime in the mid-1900’s, and has been informally surveyed by Donald Rumrill and others. No formal excavations have been conducted at the site. No structures or features have been recorded at the site, but there are several private collections of artifacts in existence. The artifacts from the site include chert projectile points, copper projectile points, glass beads, a lead effigy, stone anvils, and a stone celt.

A kaolin pipe fragment with a distinctive knight with sword heel mark was found at the site. This type of pipe was also found in deposits at Fort Orange dating to AD 1640-

1647. The brass R mouth harp also suggests occupation after 1640 (Snow 1995a:324).

246

Oak Hill #1 (AD 1640-1646)

The Oak Hill #1 village site was built on a broad hilltop west of the Mohawk

River and over 300 meters from the nearest source of water (Snow 1995:334). The soils

around the site are productive silt loams that would have been beneficial for growing

maize and other domesticates. Oak Hill #1 is likely the successor site to both the

Prospect Hill and Sand Hill #1 sites. The village site covers an area of 10,600 m2. Using a density of 20 m2/person, the estimated population would have been 530 individuals.

This is enough to have housed either Prospect Hill or Sand Hill #1 residents, but not both.

Snow (1995:359) suggests that all three of these sites were built by members of the

Failing site village after the smallpox epidemic. He previously suggested that Failing

was inhabited by both Oneida immigrants to the Mohawk Valley and local Mohawks.

These same individuals moved to Prospect Hill and Sand Hill #1 as smallpox was ravaging the population. Populations continued to decline during this period, but not

enough to account for the 62 % drop (850 people) from both Prospect Hill and Sand Hill

#1 (1380 people) to Oak Hill #1 (530 people) (Snow 1995:359). He further indicates that

emigration of the Oneidas back to their ancestral territory may account for this difference.

Another explanation could be that the density at Oak Hill #1 was 12 m2/person, not 20

m2/person. This would give Oak Hill #1 a population of 880 individuals, a decrease of

35% from the combined Prospect Hill and Sand Hill #1 villages. This decrease could

have occurred without any emigration. The Bauder site dating to this same period has a

density of 12 m2/person, so it is reasonable to apply the same density to the Oak Hill #1

site. In reality, more data from the Oak Hill #1 site will be required to determine which

247 of these two scenarios is closer to the truth. More data on possible Oneidas in the

Mohawk territory would also help to clear up any confusion surrounding post-epidemic

Mohawk demography.

The location of the Oak Hill #1 site has been known since the 1800’s. Numerous excavations by both amateurs and professionals have been conducted at the site over the last 100 years. University at Albany archaeologists surveyed the site in 1982 and combined with State University College at Oneonta researchers to extensively excavate the site in 1983 (Snow 1995). Because the site had been heavily plowed and possibly mined for top soil, very few postmolds were found. This prevented any delineation of dwelling structures. Similarly, only a few features were clearly identified at the site.

These included hearths, a windfall pit, and indiscriminant pits (Snow 1995). Several burials had been excavated during earlier work in the 1930’s. Artifacts found at the site include a silver chalice (since lost), Iroquois pottery, lead and bone effigies, bone tools, iron axes, brass and chert projectile points, chert debitage, gun parts, kaolin pipe fragments, glass beads, and shell beads. Maize and other plant specimens were also recovered at the site.

The kaolin pipes found here suggest that it was occupied contemporaneously with

Bauder and Rumrill-Naylor around 1635. EB pipes do appear here indicating that they were used at the very end of the period or that occupation may have continued into the next period. There is ample evidence of shot casting and several key post-1646 items are missing (Snow 1995a:358-9).

248 Printup, 1124 (AD 1646-1659)

The Printup site was built on a bluff overlooking the Mohawk River to the north.

This site was the easternmost Mohawk village of the time and was built on productive silt loam soils within 100 meters of a source of running water (Snow 1995). The site covers an area of 7570 m2 (Snow 1995:370), a size that would have held around 378 people with a density of 20 m2 per person. While most other sites during this time period were occupied from AD 1646 to AD 1666, the Printup community appears to have moved around AD 1659 to a village at the Freeman site (Snow 1995:365). In addition, this site is the likely successor to the Bauder site and retained the Ossernenon name from that previous village.

Arthur Parker (1922) was familiar with the site, so its discovery predates the

1920’s but likely only by a few years (Snow 1995). No formal surveys or excavations have taken place at the Printup site, although collectors have been removing artifacts from the site for some time. Snow (1995) inventoried 478 artifacts including glass beads, a large number of gun parts, only a few native ceramics, EB kaolin pipes (diagnostic artifacts), brass points, copper disks and kettles, brass thimbles and tinklers, a brass R mouth harp, incised Jesuit rings, coins, iron axes, iron knives and points, metal buttons, lead effigies, and cast lead shot.

The presence of R mouth harps at the site shows that the initial occupation was after 1646. The presence of Jesuit paraphernalia also indicates that the site must have been occupied at or after 1655, as the Jesuits were only allowed back into Mohawk country after that date. EB pipes, which first appear at Fort Orange in 1644, are also found at the site. These items are all diagnostic to the AD 1646-1666 period. The

249 abandonment date of 1659 is based on the absence of round red beads and funnel bowl pipes, which became popular at the end of the period (Snow 1995:367-9).

Mitchell, 1248 (AD 1646-1666)

The Mitchell site is a large site for this time period located on the southern side of the Mohawk River. The site is surrounded by highly productive loam soils that would have been very beneficial to any population living there (Snow 1995). The site covers an area of 14,400 m2, a size that would have been able to hold 720 individuals at a density of

20 m2 per person (Snow 1995:378). This is actually an increase in population compared

to the villages of the previous period. This time was likely still seeing a decrease in

Mohawk population due to disease and warfare. However, we also know at this time that

the Mohawk were bringing significant numbers of refugees from surrounding nations to

the valley to supplement their population (JR 43:187). Snow (1995) admits this increase

in size may also be a fault of the population estimation method, but there is not enough

evidence to clearly determine the reasoning for the reversal in the trend.

While the exact date of discovery of the site is unknown, it was familiar to

prominent collectors in the late 1800’s. An intensive magnetometer survey was

conducted at the Mitchell site in 1986 by University at Albany researchers. The

suspected features determined by the magnetometer survey were tested with soil augurs

but no formal excavations have taken place at the site (Snow 1995:376). No structures

were delineated at the site and there have been no recorded finds of features. Artifacts

from the site include glass beads, brass mouth harps, incised Jesuit rings, an iron padlock,

250 an iron fork, a brass plate depicting a hunting scene, lead turtle effigies, a stone wolf

effigy, EB kaolin pipe fragments, and a pewter pipe (Snow 1995).

The brass R mouth harps at the site suggest an occupation date later than 1640,

and incised Jesuit rings indicate occupation after 1655. The kaolin pipes from the Printup

site match those found here. Sites were reoccupied to the north side of the river in 1666, so we can be sure that occupation ended by that date (Snow 1995a:378).

Janie, 5808 (AD 1646-1666)

The Janie site lies south of the Mohawk River just east of the Mitchell site. The

settlement was built on productive silt loam soils within 50 meters of a source of water

(Snow 1995). The site was a hamlet and likely a satellite to one of the larger villages like

Mitchell that was located in close proximity (Snow 1995). The Janie site covers 2500

m2, an area that would have held 125 people with a density of 20 m2 per person (Snow

1995:384). Mohawk sites were breaking up into smaller communities at this time in

response to the devastating loss of life that occurred as a result of European-introduced

diseases (Snow 1995).

The site was discovered and surveyed by Donald Rumrill. University at Albany

researchers measured the dimensions of the site to determine the overall site area. No

formal excavations have taken place at the Janie site (Snow 1995). Artifacts resulting

from Rumrill’s survey include 42 glass beads, buttons, a brass coin, a brass R mouth

harp, incised Jesuit rings, a brass pipe liner, brass thimbles, brass kettle fragments,

several iron tools, lead effigies, gun parts, musket balls, and kaolin pipes (Snow

1995:383).

251 About 30% of the beads at the site have finished ends, a trait that was not seen

until after 1646. The presence of brass R mouth harps and incised Jesuit rings also

indicate an occupation on or after 1655 (Snow 1995a:383).

Horatio Nellis, 1229 (AD 1646-1666)

The Horatio Nellis village was built on a bluff overlooking the Mohawk River to

the north. The site lies within 200 meters of a water source and was built on highly

productive silt loams that are considered the best for agriculture in the valley (Snow

1995). The site occupies 4500 m2, an area that would have been able to accommodate

225 people with an occupation density of 20 m2 per person (Snow 1995:389). This site

was likely one of the four Mohawk villages burned by de Tracy and his army in 1666.

After this attack, the Mohawks moved their villages north of the river. While small in

size, this site still represents the third largest village of the period, and is considerably

larger than the two hamlets occupied at the same time (Snow 1995).

Local collectors knew the sites whereabouts in the late 1800’s. In 1986, Douglas

Mackey and Victoria Schmitt conducted an intensive magnetometer survey of the site.

This survey along with subsequent augur testing provided information on the boundary of

the site and basic information on the numbers and sizes of the longhouses within the site

(Snow 1995). No large-scale excavations have taken place at the Horatio Nellis site. The

magnetometer survey indicated the presence of several longhouses, but none have been investigated. The situation is similar for any features within the site. Several artifact collections exist from earlier informal surveys. These include bone fragments, ceramic

252 effigies, chert points and debitage, copper points, glass beads, gunflints, kaolin pipe fragments, shell beads, and an iron gunlock (Snow 1995:386-388).

The presence of incised Jesuit rings and redwood beads suggests and occupation during the AD 1646-1666 period. This village is also on the south side of the river, so it is likely that it was occupied before the move to the north side in 1666 (Snow 1995a:386).

Fisk, 1210 (AD 1646-1666)

The Fisk village site was built about a kilometer away from the Mohawk River and was likely a small hamlet that was occupied during the mid-seventeenth century

(Snow 1995). The site is surrounded by productive soils. The area of the site is unknown because most of it has been destroyed, but various sources indicate that a population of

about 100 individuals occupied the site (Snow 1995:403).

The site has been known by the Fisk family, from whom the site takes its name,

for some years. Donald Rumrill and the University at Albany conducted separate surveys

of the site, but no formal excavations were undertaken. Several glass beads have been recovered from the site along with a single iron spontoon (Snow 1995).

The presence of finished tubular beads suggests an occupation during the AD

1646-1666 period.

Allen, 1223 (AD 1646-1666)

The Allen site was built on a spur of land between two streams on the southern

side of the Mohawk River. The site is within 50 meters of water and is built on very productive silt loam soils (Snow 1995). The Allen site covers 3800 m2, an area large

253 enough to house 190 people with a density of 20 m2 per person (Snow 1995:401). Like

the Mitchell, Horatio Nellis, and Freeman, this site was likely one of the four villages

burned by de Tracy in 1666. After this event, Mohawk villages were built north of the river.

The site has been a popular collecting ground for locals since the 1800’s. The

only formal archaeological work done at the sites was a survey by University at Albany

researchers to determine the area of the site for demographic purposes (Snow 1995). As

a result of the extensive collecting at the Allen site, there are several private collections of

artifacts totaling 3,255 items (Snow 1995:390). Artifacts found at the site include

Mohawk pottery, toy pots, bone decorative items, marine shell beads, copper points, glass

beads, catlinite beads, lead bale seals, lead effigies, copper tinklers, brass pots and thimbles, rum bottles, iron scissors, gun parts, pewter utensils, an iron rapier, and EB kaolin pipes (Snow 1995).

The site resides on the south side of the river suggesting a date prior to 1666. In addition, most of the diagnostic artifacts point to an occupation during the AD 1646-1666

period.

Freeman, 1145 (AD 1659-1666)

The Freeman site occupies an undetermined amount of area on the south side of

the Mohawk River. The soils adjacent to the site are silt loams, but there are significant

pockets of sand and gravel as well. This variety may have been attractive as a means of

managing subsistence risk. Some soils would have been good in wet years, others in dry

years (Snow 1995). The site was partially destroyed by house construction, so

254 determination of the site boundary is impossible. For this reason, demographic

information comes from the predecessor site: the Printup site. It is believed that the

community from the Printup site moved to the Freeman site in AD 1659. While we

cannot be sure that all of the Printup residents moved to the Freeman site or that only

Printup residents moved there, the safest assumption at this time is that the Freeman site

had a population similar to that of the Printup site. This would put the Freeman site

population at 378 individuals.

The earliest records of the Freeman site come from the Van Epps-Hartley Chapter

of the NYSAA and have a date of 1957. No formal survey was conducted at the site, and

the only excavations were salvage archaeology carried out shortly before the house

construction that damaged the site (Snow 1995). Evidence of burning in the postmolds of

the palisade found during this excavation support the idea that this was one of the villages burned by de Tracy in 1666. Artifacts found at the site include an iron gunlock, an iron knife, glass beads, a copper tube, iron axes, a 1632 coin, a brass R mouth harp, ceramic and kaolin pipe fragments, and a flintlock hammer of a type first made around 1660

(Snow 1995:372-374).

The round red beads, flintlock hammer, and stoneware sherd found at the site indicate that occupation likely did not begin until after 1659. The absence of Jesuit rings suggest that the site was occupied during the Jesuit hiatus from 1659 to 1667. Finished tubular beads replace earlier unfinished varieties and serve as further evidence of occupation during the end of the AD 1646-1666 period. The Dutch also refer to a new

Mohawk castle in 1659, and this site is believed to be it (Snow 1995a:374-5).

255 Jackson-Everson, 1213 (AD 1657-1679)

The Jackson-Everson site was built on the north side of the Mohawk River at a

time when all other Mohawk villages were located on the south side of the river. This

anomaly in conjunction with accounts from the Jesuit Relations (43:187) have led

researchers to conclude that this was a village composed of Huron refugees who moved to the Mohawk Valley in 1657 with the encouragement of Jesuit priests (Snow

1995:403). The site was built on high quality soils that would have been beneficial to

Iroquois farming methods (Snow 1995). This site appears to have survived the destruction caused by de Tracy in 1666 and was inhabited until 1679.

The site covers an area of 11,400 m2, an area large enough to house 570 inhabitants with a density of 20 m2 per person (Snow 1995:410). However, it appears that the population of the site decreased over time. By 1677, there were only 300 Mohawk warriors (O’Callahan 1850-1:12). This translates into a total Mohawk population of 1200

individuals. (The Wendat population at Jackson-Everson is counted in this population

because it appears that Greenhalgh did not separate ethnically Haudenosaunee

communities from immigrant communities). Greenhalgh also provides a count of 96

longhouses for the same year. This allows for the calculation of 12.5 people per

longhouse. With Greenhalgh’s count of 16 houses at Canajorha, believed to be Jackson-

Everson, that results in a population of 200. Thus, the population at Jackson-Everson was

570 in 1666, but the effects of disease, warfare, and migration of Catholics to Canada

reduced the population to 200 by 1677.

The location of the Jackson-Everson site has been known for almost 100 years.

Excavations were carried out at the cemetery locus of the site in the 1930’s by Donald

256 Lenig. University at Albany researchers excavated a midden at the village locus in 1983.

Walking surveys and an attempt to define the site from aerial photography were also

conducted (Snow 1995). One feature, a hearth, was uncovered by the University at

Albany excavations. Artifacts found at the site include bone tools and decorative items,

brass artifacts, Native ceramics, European ceramics chert tools and gunflints, iron tools,

kaoline pipe fragments, lead, and shell beads. Subsistence remains include beans, maize,

squash, nutshells, and faunal remains of several mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and

birds (Snow 1995:407, 409).

The presence of redwood beads and Jesuit rings place the site after 1655. It is on

the north side of the river, and Mohawk communities moved from the south side in 1666.

As stated above, however, it is likely that this site is a Huron village that was established in 1657. Further, the EB marked kaolin pipes suggest and occupation from 1655 to 1675.

The lack of HG kaolin pipes, substantial numbers of black beads, or wire-wound beads all suggest the site was abandoned by 1679 (Snow 1995a:408-10).

Fox Farm, 1126 (AD 1666-1679)

The Fox Farm village was built on a high bluff overlooking the Mohawk River.

The site is located on high quality soils but is around 400 meters from a running water

source. However, there are several springs on the surrounding hillsides that were likely

adequate water sources (Snow 1995). Kateri Tekakwitha likely moved with the rest of the

Caughnawaga village from the Freeman site to the Fox Farm site in 1666 (Snow

1995:415). If this is the case, she would have lived here until she moved to Canada in the

late 1670’s.

257 The site covers an area of 6900 m2, an area that could have housed 345 people with a density of 20 m2 per person. However, at this time we have a good description of the site from Wentworth Greenhalgh as he traveled through Mohawk Country. He noted

24 houses at the site. The White Orchard site, the principle Mohawk village at the time, had about 23 people per longhouse (Snow 1995:413). Applying this number to the number of houses at the Fox Farm site gives a population of 560 (Snow 1995:418).

Given the seemingly detailed description by Greenhalgh this number is probably the more reliable. Interestingly, this number is very close to the number, 575, that would have lived at the site given a density of 12 m2 per person. Similar to the Jackson-Everson site, the population at the Fox Farm site likely declined between 1666 and 1677, when

Wentworth Greenhalgh visited. Using the method outlined above, the population at

Cahaniaga, the village name for the Fox Farm site, was 300 in 1677. This is based on

Greenhalgh’s count of 24 houses at the village.

The location of the Fox Farm site has been known for several decades. The site has never been formally surveyed and only small-scale excavations have ever taken place. The village has largely been destroyed by gravel mining. During this process several longhouses and pit features were uncovered but no information was recorded.

Artifacts found at the site include iron mouth harps, brass mouth harps, kaolin pipes (both

EB and cross and orb), gun parts, brass points, iron hooks, Jesuit rings, a Louis XIII coin, rum bottles, conch shell fragments, hawk bells, pewter utensils, brass kettles and scraps, lead shot, iron awls, thimbles, shell wampum, and iron nails. Subsistence remains include deer and other mammal bones (Snow 1995:416).

258 The redwood beads, cross and orb kaolin pipes, and stamped Jesuit rings place

this site in the AD 1666-1679 period. The lack of HG kaolin pipes, large numbers of black

beads, or wire-wound beads suggests that occupation did not extend beyond 1679 (Snow

1995a:418).

Schenk, 1123 (AD 1666-1679)

The Schenk village was built on the north bank of the Mohawk River. This was

likely the village of Canagora described by Greenhalgh in his writing. The site is built on

the flats near the River and the soils there are productive for agriculture and would have

been beneficial to hand-tilling methods (Snow 1995). The site area has never been determined, but Greenhalgh gave a count of 16 longhouses in the palisaded village.

Using the 23 people per longhouse established at the White Orchard and Fox Farm sites, this gives a population of 368 individuals. Like the other sites occupied during the period, the population at the site, known as Canagora during its occupation, decreased over time.

By 1677, the population was reduced to 200 people. The site was likely abandoned in

1679 after the large number of Catholic Mohawks left the valley for Canada. There were not enough Mohawks left in the valley to maintain four villages, so people consolidated at this time into two settlements (Snow 1995).

The location of the Schenk site has been known since the late 1800’s, but no formal surveys or excavations have taken place there. There are several collections, though. They include bone tools, European ceramics, chert tools and debitage, copper artifacts, gunflints, glass beads, iron tools, shell beads and pendants, and bear and raccoon tooth amulets (Snow 1995:421-423).

259 The lack of round black beads suggests the site was abandoned by 1679. The

redwood beads and cross and orb kaolin pipes place the site in the AD 1666-1679 period

(Snow 1995a:424).

Unknown village (AD 1666-1679)

Snow (1995a:412) briefly mentions a small village that may have been a

temporary settlement or an Oneida outpost. However, Greenhalgh counts 10 houses at the

site, which indicates that it was not much smaller than the Schenk or Jackson-Everson

villages. This fact led to the site’s inclusion in this study. Based on the house count and

the ratio of 12.5 people per house, the population at this village would have been 125

individuals.

This site is known only from documentary sources. No archaeological remains

have been found or identified to come from this site.

White Orchard, 1219 (AD 1666-1693)

The White Orchard village was built north of the Mohawk River within 100

meters of a source of water. The soils around the site are productive and conducive to

hand-tilling techniques (Snow 1995). The site covers an area of 14,000 m2, an area that

could have houses around 700 Mohawks with a population density of 20 m2 per person

(Snow 1995:428). Snow derives the 23 people per longhouse from this site based on

Greenhalgh’s longhouse count and the population estimate from the area of the site.

Again, the population at the White Orchard site, known as Tionondogen during its

occupation, declined from 1666 to 1679. By the latter date, 375 people were living at the

260 site. While other sites were abandoned after the exodus of the Catholic Mohawks, the

White Orchard, or Tionondagen as Greenhalgh refers to it, continued to be occupied until

1693 when the French conduct another raid on the Mohawk (Snow 1995).

The site has been known to collectors for over 100 years, but has only recently been widely known to collectors. The only formal archaeological work at the site was a surface survey of artifact distributions to determine site size by University at Albany researchers (Snow 1995). The only known artifacts from the site are glass beads, a brass mouth harp, and two stemmed brass projectile points (Snow 1995:427). There are likely

other artifacts from the site in various collections, but the types and quantities are

unknown at this time.

Being on the north side of the river, this site must have been occupied after 1666.

The lack of HG kaolin pipes, black beads, or wire-wound beads indicates that the site was

not occupied after 1685. However, in 1689 the Mohawks began building a new village

upstream from the White Orchard village. It is unlikely that occupation at White Orchard

ended before this new village was built. Thus, the occupation likely extended beyond the

AD 1666-1679 period and through most of the AD 1679-1693 period (Snow 1995a:427-8).

Caughnawaga, 1116 (AD 1679-1693)

The Caughnawaga village was built north of the Mohawk River on productive

soils that would have been well-suited to Iroquois farming techniques (Snow 1995). The

site occupies 6000 m2, which would have housed 300 people with a density of 20 m2 per person. The Caughnawaga site is the site that was used to first establish the 20 m2 per

person population density for late contact period Iroquoi sites. The population derived

261 from the area is supported by the data recovered from extensive excavations at the site.

Fortunately for this study, the Caughnawaga site has been completely excavated revealing the presence of 12 longhouses. Starna (1980:380) estimated the population of the site to be 327 individuals. Snow (1995:443), based on the actual excavation notes, revised the number of longhouses inhabited from 7 to 9 and determined that there were less hearths than originially thought. His recalculated population number for the site is

300. This site has long been thought to be the settlement where Kateri Tekakwitha lived before converting to Catholicism and moving to Canada. However, recent evidence suggests that the site was not built until 1679, which was after the migration of Catholic

Mohawks out of the valley. The most likely location for Kateri’s birthplace is the

Freeman site, and the most likely location of her home village before the move is the Fox

Farm site (Snow 1995).

The site was first sketched by General John S. Clark in 1877 (Snow 1995). In the

1940’s, Van Epps-Hartley Chapter members and Father Thomas Grassmann tested the site. Later in the decade, further excavations convinced chapter members that they had found the site of Caughnawaga. From 1950 to 1956, excavations were carried out by

Father Grassmann and others until the site was completely exposed. These excavations revealed a square palisade and twelve longhouse structures (Snow 1995). Several hearths were excavated, but very few storage pits were found (Snow 1995). The majority of artifacts from the site are on display at the Mohawk-Caughnawaga Museum including glass beads. A significant amount of subsistence remains were found at the site, but they have yet to be analyzed (Snow 1995).

262 The archaeological remains of the site are not consistent with Greenhalgh’s description of the site in 1677. Frontenac’s raid in 1693 caused the abandonment of all

Mohawk villages in 1693. The presence of HG kaolin pipes and round black beads indicate an occupation after 1679 (Snow 1995a:442-3).

Lipe, 1216 (AD 1689-1693)

The Lipe site is a small archaeological site of undetermined function. In 1689, the

Mohawks asked the English for horses and men to construct a stockade at a new castle to be named Tionondage (O’Callahan 1850-51:87-88). Snow (1995a) believes this account indicates that the Lipe site was the proposed location of Tionondage and was under construction when the French attacked in 1693. Therefore, this site should not be considered a separate occupation, as the few people that were living at the site while it was under construction were likely accounted for, settlement-wise, at the extant White

Orchard village.

Artifacts found at the site include chert projectile points, an antler haft, a stoneware jug, a brass kettle, glass beads, Mohawk pottery, iron tools, a pewter spoon, a brass sleigh bell, gun parts, iron nails, and a brass tobacco box (Snow 1995a:444-446).

Although the Lipe site is not part of the demographic discussion, it will be analyzed to determine the settlement ecology of the site.

This site is believed to be the village that was being built in 1689. Snow

(1995a:447) believes that this site was the unfinished castle begun in 1689 and destroyed by Frontenac in 1693.

263 Oneida Sites

Location of 20 Oneida settlements occupied during the AD 1500-1700 period.

264 Buyea, 654 (AD 1490-1515)

The Buyea site was built on a promontory between two tributaries of Cowaselon

Creek. The site resided at the top of the hills on the western side of the creek. The site

was largely destroyed by the construction of the Madison County Landfill. The area was

composed of Honeoye loam soils that are productive and would have been conducive to hand-tilling techniques. The estimated area of the site ranges from .75 acres (Pratt n.d.) to 4 acres (Pratt 1976:96). However, the best archaeological evidence for estimating the population of the Buyea site is the results of excavations carried out by Theodore

Whitney and members of the Chenango Chapter of the NYSAA in the late 1960’s

(Whitney 1970). These excavations completely revealed one longhouse measuring 120 feet long by 17.5 feet wide and portions of another longhouse that appeared to have the same dimensions. Furthermore, they estimated enough room for two more longhouses of similar size. Pratt (1976) estimated that the site could have accommodated up to four more houses. Depending on the number of longhouses the population would have been either 240 or 360 individuals. This is based on the length of the longhouses (assuming either four or six longhouses with lengths of 120 feet), an average compartment length of

19.1 feet (Snow and Starna 1989), and family sizes of five individuals (Snow and Starna

1989). These calculations indicate that each longhouse had approximately six sets of two compartments, and each compartment housed five individuals. In addition, the map published in Whitney’s publication shows 10 hearths patterned into six clusters indicating that there were six hearths whose locations were changed over time. Six compartments multiplied by the family number of 10 (two families) results in 60 individuals per house, and the village population is then contingent upon the number of houses. Four houses

265 would be 240 individuals, while six would be 360. Similar to the Tuttle, Moon, Goff,

and Bronck sites, the Buyea site was probably one of several small sites occupied by the

Oneida at the turn of the 16th century. Later, these communities conglomerated into one larger site.

The Buyea site has been known since at least the 1950’s and several undocumented excavations and surface collections were conducted in the past. In

addition to Theodore Whitney’s excavations, Peter Pratt excavated at the site in 1956 and

1957 in an attempt to find pottery sherds (Pratt 1976:96-97). Two longhouses were

identified along with several associated hearth features. Portions of the palisade were also discovered. A single line of posts protected the steep slopes on the southeastern side of the site while the less steep northwestern side was protected by multiple lines of palisades (Whitney 1970:4). Artifacts found at the site include Native ceramics, pipe bowl fragments, and (Pratt 1976:98). Subsistence items found at the site include bones from deer, elk, bear, beaver, woodchuck, and assorted small mammals and birds (Pratt

1976:97).

The dates for the site occupation are based on the seriation of pottery styles and projectile point morphology. The pottery at the Buyea site is very Mohawk in style, and increasing collar height on utilitarian pots is the primary feature used to determine the relative date of the site. In this case the percentage of high collar heights were intermediate between the earlier Nichols Pond site, occupied AD 1450-1475 and the later

Vaillancourt site, occupied AD 1525-1550. In addition, the projectile point length-to-

width ratio is also used to chronologically order sites. Projectile points became narrower

over time reflected as a decrease in the length-to-width ratio. In this case, the site has a

266 ratio of 1.71 compared to that of 1.58 at the later Vaillancourt site (Wonderley n.d.). All evidence points to this site being occupied at the turn of the sixteenth century during the above dates.

Moon, 659 (AD 1490-1515)

The Moon village was built on the upper portions of the eastern hillsides above

Cowaselon Creek. The site lies on a promontory between two ravines that house tributaries of the aforementioned creek. The site lies on productive Honeoye loam soils that would have been beneficial for growing maize and other crops. Very little settlement pattern work has been done there, but Pratt estimates the size of the site as .5 acres or less. This area of 2023 m2 would house 100 people with a density of 20 m2 per person.

The Moon site’s location has been known for several decades and digging by amateurs was common at the site. Pratt (1976) conducted excavations at the site and uncovered several sherds of Native ceramics. Other artifacts found at the site include chert corner- and side-notched points and chert triangular points (Pratt 1976:98-99).

The dates of occupation are derived from ceramic analysis and seriation. Pratt

(1976) identified a very similar assemblage to that of the Buyea site leading to identical dates for the two sites.

Goff, 658 (AD 1490-1515)

The Goff village was built on a promontory surrounded by steep slopes on three sides. It lies in close proximity to the Moon site but is further up the slope and south.

The site lies on the upper slopes of the hills forming the eastern side of the Cowaselon

267 valley. Goff was built on Honeoye loam soil, which is the most productive soil type in the area. Very little settlement pattern archaeology has been conducted at the site, but the area is said to occupy a terrace measuring 350 feet by 150 feet (Pratt 1976:99). The northern, southern, and western edges of this terrace are very steep and create definite natural boundaries. On the eastern side, the hills slope down to the terrace and are reasonably steep themselves. These measurements therefore establish a maximum size for the site. If treated as an ellipse, these dimensions create an area of 3910 m2, which

would have housed 196 individuals living at a density of 20 m2 per person.

The location of the Goff site has been known for several decades. Pratt and others

excavated a midden at the site prior to his 1976 publication. The owners of the site had

previously collected on the site, but there is no other record of excavations or surveys

being conducted. Artifacts found at the site include Native ceramics (some with effigy

faces), a pipe, an antler handle, and a lithic barbed harpoon (Pratt 1976:99-100).

The dates of occupation are based on ceramic analysis. Similar to the Moon site,

Pratt (1976) identified several similarities in the Goff and Buyea ceramic assemblages.

As a result, the Goff site was assigned an identical set of dates.

Brunk, 657 (AD 1490-1515)

There are believed to be two separate occupations at the Brunk site, one in the

early 16th century and one in the mid-18th century (Gibson 1986:7). The latter is outside

of the time frame of this study and the focus will be on the earlier occupation. The Brunk

village was built on a low rise of land on the eastern side of the Cowaselon Creek valley.

The site lies downslope from the Goff site and within 200 meters of Cowaselon Creek.

268 The site lies on Honeoye loam soils, which are very productive for corn agriculture.

Monte Bennett, who excavated the site from 1997-2001, measured the site as an ellipse

with a major axis length of 211 feet and a minor axis length of 200 feet (Bennett 2006,

personal communication). These measurements result in an area calculation of 3011 m2.

My mapping of the boundaries with a GPS unit yielded an area of 3000 m2, which

strongly agrees with Mr. Bennett’s measurements. This area would have housed 150

individuals with a density of 20 m2 per person. Like the aforementioned site, the Brunk

site was likely one of four or five contemporaneously occupied hamlets built by the

Oneidas in the late 15th century. They later coalesced into the larger Olcott site located to

the south and on the western side of Cowaselon Creek.

Local archaeologists have known the location of the Brunk site since the early

1970’s. Minor excavations were carried out in the 1980’s, but Monte Bennett and

NYSAA Chenango Chapter members conducted the majority of archaeological

investigation at the site between 1997 and 2001. Mr. Bennett’s work included measuring

site extent and excavating portions of the village area (Bennett 2006, personal

communication). Artifacts found at the site include Native ceramics, stone pipe

fragments, and chert knives, scrapers, drills, and projectile points (Gibson 1986:6).

The dates of occupation are based on ceramic collar heights and projectile length-

to-width ratio, very similar to the Buyea site. The percentage of high collar heights, as

defined in the Buyea site description above, is similar to the Buyea site assemblage. In

addition, the length-to-width ratio of projectile points is also similar (Wonderley n.d.).

Thus, the sites are assigned the same establishment and abandonment dates.

269 Olcott, 664 (AD 1520-1525)

The Olcott village was built on a plateau on the western hills of the Cowaselon

Creek valley. The area of the site slopes gently to the west and the adjacent land eventually becomes much steeper as it descends to the valley below. The site is built on productive Honeoye loam soils and is located about 800 meters west of Cowaselon

Creek. The Olcott site is considerably larger than its predecessors and is located on the opposite side of the valley as the Moon and Goff sites but the same as the Tuttle and

Buyea sites. The site is also located south of these earlier sites. This site is likely the result of the earlier Buyea, Moon, Goff, and Brunk communities combining into one larger villages. Previous speculation (Pratt 1976) has suggested that this was a response to increasing warfare in the region. This is a very likely explanation given evidence from contemporaneous sites across eastern North America at this time.

The notable feature of the Olcott site is its large size especially when compared to the small hamlets occupied just prior to its construction. The Olcott site is reported to be as large as 8-10 acres (Pratt 1976:100), but this estimation likely includes the adjacent burial loci as well as the village area. The site has been heavily disturbed by construction of a farm, houses, and Butler Road making measurements of the area problematic.

However, two scaled maps were made of the site in 1963 and 1971. Both maps are based on the location of sections of the palisade that were uncovered during various excavations. The 1963 map made by Gordon DeAngelo is accurately scaled but made from the earliest excavations. The 1971 map made by Theodore Whitney is less accurate in its scale but is based on the most recent palisade excavations. Therefore, I used measurements from both maps and averaged the results. Whitney’s map yielded an

270 elliptical area of 27,300 m2. Two measurements from the DeAngelo map (one correcting

for the later palisade excavations) gave areas of 23,050 m2 and 30,530 m2. The average

of these measurements is 27,000 m2, which is an area large enough to house 1350 people

with a density of 20 m2 per person.

The location of the Olcott site has been known to local archaeologists since at least the 1950’s and was likely known to the property owners for quite some time before that. Several excavations were carried out at the site in the late 1950’s and throughout the 1960’s (Peterson 1958; Pratt 1963; Whitney 1971). Most of the reports focus on one of the more remarkable features of the Olcott site: the existence of palisade posts measuring 18-21 inches in diameter. These are some of the largest palisade posts found in the northeast. Whitney (1971) also reported a possible bastion or structure used to gain access to the top of the large palisade. Several people have also mentioned the presence of large grooved boulders on the site believed to have been used for sharpening celts

(Peterson 1958) or straightening arrow shafts (Whitney 1990). No longhouses or other features have been reported at the site although the owner of the site described remains that were almost certainly hearths in an area that was destroyed due to modern building construction. Artifacts recovered at the site include Native ceramicsgrinding stones, bone projectile points, bone awls, bone needles, antler harpoons, bone and tooth decorative items, a shell bead, chert projectile points, stone celts, pipe fragments, and one piece of metal believed to be a projectile point (Whitney 1971:6-8, 14; Wonderley n.d.).

Subsistence remains found at the site include bones from bear, raccoon, beaver, birds, and small mammals (Whitney 1976:8).

271 The dates of occupation for the site are based on the projectile point length-to-

width ratio, as described in the Buyea site description. In this case, the ratio was intermediate between that of the Buyea site and Vaillancourt site (Wonderley n.d.). Thus, the site was assigned dates that begin at the end of the Buyea occupation and end at the beginning of the Vaillancourt occupation. Descriptions of very thin occupational debris at the site support the short occupation time suggested by the projectile point ratio (Whitney

1971:100-1).

Vaillancourt, 656 (AD 1525-1555)

The Vaillancourt village was built on a plateau 300 feet above the Cowaselon

Creek valley bottom. The land the site is built on gently slopes eastward toward the

valley before becoming steeper at the top of the valley ridge. The south side of the site is

also bordered by a steep ravine. The site is built on Honeoye loam soils, which are

beneficial to both the types of crops being grown by Iroquois farmers as well as the

methods they used. The site covers an area of 34,000 m2 allowing for a population of

1700 residents given a density of 20 m2 per person. The area of the site was determined

from existing site maps and the associated scales (Weiskotten 1994a). The site is owned

by the Oneida Nation and access to these sites was denied. On the map, the boundaries

of the site were determined from excavations of the palisade line, extent of artifact

scatter, and topography. This is the best source for boundary information at this time

without access to the site.

The location of the Vaillancourt site has been known for several decades and

because of this was a popular location for local collectors. Pratt (1961) conducted

272 excavations at Vaillancourt in the 1950’s and reported that Herbert Bigford, a local

collector, had identified a portion of the palisade. Recent work by Chenango Chapter

members has identified another section of the palisade along the southern edge of the site.

Starting in 1993, Richard Hosbach and Chenango Chapter members conducted

excavations at the site and uncovered the remains of possibly seven longhouses, one

measuring 200 feet in length. Recent work by Gerald Hayes and Daryl Wonderly

uncovered another house as well (Hayes et al 1999; Hayes et al 2001). Features found at

the site include cooking pits found at the northern end of the large longhouse (Hayes et al

1999). Artifacts found at the site include stone axes, lithic projectile points, ceramics

(some with effigy faces), an iron knife, and a brass button (Pratt 1976:117-118). Some of

the ceramics show similarities to St. Lawrence Iroquoian pottery styles (Wonderley n.d.).

Subsistence remains indicated that the Vaillancourt village residents were consuming a

large amount of fish (Keck 2005).

The Vaillancourt site is almost definitely the successor to the Olcott site. It

appears that the Oneida continued to live in a single large village as opposed to the

multiple smaller villages they inhabited during the late 15th and early 16th centuries. The

ceramic collar heights are larger than those at Olcott and the projectile length-to-width

ratio is slightly smaller (Wonderley n.d.). In addition, several radiocarbon dates from the

site support the above dates (Wonderley n.d.). Pratt (1976:117) also notes that the artifact

assemblage at the site closely resembles that of the Onondaga Barnes site, which was occupied AD 1525-1550. Further, the pottery looks very similar to that found at the

Mohawk Garoga site, which was occupied AD 1525-1545 (Wonderley n.d.). This supports

the early to mid-16th dates for the site. Finally, the multiple, independent lines of

273 evidence suggesting occupation dates of AD 1525-1550 make this site a fixed point in the

chronology to which other sites are compared.

Bach, 663 (AD 1560-1580)

The Bach village was built on a ridge to the east and overlooking Peterboro

Swamp. The site is adjacent to potable water and is naturally protected by steep slopes

on all sides. The soils under and around the site are Honeoye Loam, which are

productive. The site is estimated at 6000 m2 based on Pratt’s (1976:118) measurements

of the flat area occupied by the site. This would allow for 600 individuals with a density

of 12 m2 per person. The higher density is used at this site because of the restricted

amount of land available for building compared to sites like Olcott and Vaillancourt. It

appears that the Oneida community at Vaillancourt divided into two villages at the end of

the 16th century, the Bach and Diable sites. Bach was the small of these two village sites but still much larger than the sites occupied at 1500.

The location of the Bach site has been known for several decades, but its remote location prevented extensive looting (Whitney 1967). Pratt (1976) dug here in 1956, and

Whitney (1967) excavated at the site in the 1960’s. The latter excavator uncovered a portion of a longhouse and sections of the palisade line. He also believed that there were at least eight houses present at the site. Artifacts found at the site include chert projectile points, drills, and scrapers, worked quartz, stone celts, a grinding stone, Native ceramics, pipe fragments, bone awls and needles, bone beads and ornaments, shell beads, a shale disc, one iron knife, an iron awl, an iron celt, brass decorative items, and a small number

274 of glass beads (Whitney 1967:2-4). Whitney (1967) noted that the pottery styles at the

Bach site are similar to those of the Onondaga Quirk and Chase sites, which also date to

the last three decades of the 16th century. Subsistence remains recovered at the site

include deer (composing the large majority), elk, bear, wolf, small mammal, bird, and fish bones (Whitney 1967:4).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the ceramic styles. The site is dominated by the Onondaga Triangular style, which was common in the mid- to late sixteenth century. The site also yielded European metal fragments, which also suggest a

mid- to late sixteenth century occupation time (Wonderley n.d.). The exact dates are

based on the site being one of two sites occupied between the Vaillaincourt and Cameron

sites, both of which have well-established dates of occupation.

Diable, 665 (AD 1570-1600)

The Diable village was built on a promontory of land just north of Oneida Creek

and adjacent and to the west of Stockbridge Creek. The site is located above the

Munnsville West Hill on the western side of the Stockbridge Valley. The soil around the

site is the productive Honeoye loam. The Diable site lies on a peninsular piece of land

that juts off from a plateau. The site is surrounded by steep slopes on three sides. The

slope on the eastern side is particularly imposing as it is almost a vertical drop from the

site. The area of the site is 11,100 m2 (Weiskotten 1989), which could have housed 925

Oneida people with a density of 12 m2 per person. Like the Bach site, this site is located in an area with a restricted amount of level ground. The Bach and Diable sites were

275 likely occupied at the same time and were formed when the community at Vaillancourt

divided to form two villages.

The location of the Diable site has been known since at least the 1950’s. Pratt

dug at some of the midden locations in the 1950’s while trying to find pottery samples.

Chenango Chapter members excavated portion of the site throughout the 1980’s and found a longhouse believed to be 125 feet long by 23 feet wide (Wonderley n.d.).

Additionally, Daniel Weiskotten completed a detailed map of the boundaries of the site based on sections of the palisade that were uncovered during these excavations. His map provided the site area measurements for this study, and represents one of the most accurate site area measurements that we have because it is based on the actual excavation of palisade lines. Artifacts found at the site include Native ceramics, iron axes, an iron knife, and glass beads. Like the Bach site, this site is one of the first Oneida villages to contain European-manufactured tools and other items. Weiskotten also recovered several bones representing at least six human individuals from the middens outside the palisade.

There was evidence of violent treatment on these bones. These remains have since been

returned to the Oneida Nation for reburial (Wonderley n.d.).

The occupation dates are based on the existence of European materials at the site

(Wonderley n.d.). Similar to the Bach site, the artifact assemblage suggests a mid- to late

sixteenth century occupation between that of the chronologically known Vaillancourt and

Cameron sites. Further, the presence of Canadian GBP2 Beads suggests an occupation around 1600 (Bradley 2007:43). For the purposes of this study, I assumed that the Bach and Diable sites were occupied simultaneously. None of the evidence suggests otherwise.

276 Cameron, 648 (AD 1605-1620)

The Cameron site was built on a long, sloping tongue of land situated between

two tributaries of Oneida Creek. The latter body of water runs just west of the site. The

site is flanked on the north and south by deep and nearly vertical gorges leading down to

the tributaries. The eastern end is relatively flat, but was protected by a double line of palisade. The western end has a considerable slope down to Oneida Creek, but also had a single palisade. The site was completely palisaded even on the steep slopes. This is one of the most imposing site locations in all of Iroquoia. Cameron resides on Lockport clay loam soils, which is well drained but is susceptible to baking when dry. It is suitable for agriculture, but not as productive as the Honeoye loam that surrounds the site (Pratt

1976:7). The site covers an area of 8524 m2, which is large enough to house 710 occupants with a density of 12 m2 per person. This measurement is based on the palisade

post mold markers that resulted from excavations by Monte Bennett. There can be no

more accurate measurement of site area with this method than at the Cameron site.

The location of the Cameron site has been known since the 19th century. An

abandoned railway transects the site, and local stories tell of how trains passing through

the area used to stop in order to drop off passengers so they could walk over the site and

collect artifacts (Bennett 2006, personal communication). Monte Bennett has excavated at the site for several years and continues to work there presently. Along with Chenango

Chapter members he uncovered two longhouses, one measuring 22 feet by 63 feet and the other 20 feet by 95 feet (Bennett 1981:6). He has also uncovered the majority of the palisade along the western end of the site as well as portions along the northern boundary.

A crew from the Binghamton University also dug at the site in 1991 (Clark 2004).

277 Artifacts found at the site include lithic artifacts, Native ceramics, bone combs, bone

figurines, bone harpoons, iron axes, glass beads, brass projectile points, brass kettle

fragments, a sword blade, European ceramics (Pratt 1976:121-124). There is an

abnormally high number of projectile points found at the site leading Pratt (1976:122) to

suggest a preoccupation with warfare.

The occupation dates of the site are based on the seriation of European-made

glass beads. Glass beads have frequently been used to date Haudenosaunee sites occupied

from the late sixteenth century and later. The Cameron site is the earliest Oneida site to

yield significant numbers of glass trade beads to allow for dating to be done with these items. The presence of Polychrome Beads at the site suggest the date of AD 1605-1620

(Sempowski 2004; Bradley 2007:43).

Blowers, 643 (AD 1620-1635

The Blowers site was built on a long spit of land that slopes to the west and down

to the Stockbridge Valley. The site has steep ravines on the northern and southern sides

that would have provided ample protection against attacks. The topography of the

Blowers site is very similar to that of the Cameron site except the ravines are not nearly

as precipitous or deep. There are tributary streams of Oneida Creek located to the north

and south that are both within 300 meters of the site. The soils in the area are Honeoye

loams, which have already been mentioned as high quality soils in several respects. The

Blowers site covers an area of 11,800 m2, which is large enough to house 983 people with

a density of 12 m2 per person. This measurement is based on the past excavations and

current site knowledge provided by Monte Bennett.

278 The remains of the Blowers site were first excavated in the early 1930’s by E. R.

Bradley of Cazenovia, NY. With the help of a son and neighbor he uncovered some 1500

pottery pieces, stone tools, and other artifacts from the site (Bennett 1979:3). The rough terrain between the nearest road and the site has prevented large amounts of looting at the site between the 1930’s and now. The majority of work at the site has been conducted by

Monte Bennett and members from the Chenango Chapter of NYSAA. From 1973 to

1976 Bennett and others dug an exploratory trench across the longer east-west axis of the site and found several postmolds and pit and hearth features (Bennett 1979). Portions of the palisade were discovered along the western and northern boundaries, and a possible

palisade line was discovered along the eastern boundary (Pratt 1976: 124-128; Bennett

1979: 4,22). A longhouse measuring 85 feet by 20 feet was uncovered during subsequent

excavations by the same group (Bennett 1979:5). The excavation of the longhouse also

uncovered several more pit and hearth features. At least two burial loci have been

discovered adjacent to the site and burials were excavated by E.R. Bradley’s son and

others over the span of several years (Pratt 1976). Artifacts found at the site include

Native pottery, glass beads, shell beads, chert projectile points, brass projectile points,

copper and brass pieces and decorative items, copper kettle pieces, iron axes, iron knives,

bone awls, Native ceramic pipe fragments, drilled bear and wolf teeth, and horn combs

(Pratt 1976:126-127; Bennett 1979:4-5, 11).

The occupation dates for the Blowers site are based on Sempowski’s (2004) glass

trade bead chronology and ceramic styles. The presence of Seed Beads suggests the

above dates (Bradley 2007:43). In addition, the pottery at the site is a distinctive style

called Thurston Horizontal. This type also appears at the Mohawk Failing site occupied

279 AD 1615-1635. Thus, this independent line of evidence supports the bead chronology

results. Finally, the location of the site is extremely similar to that of the Cameron site,

which suggests that they were occupied during a similar time period.

Wilson, 644 (AD 1620-1635)

The Wilson site is located about 500 meters north of the Blowers site and in a similar physiographic setting. Ravines to the north and south of the site house streams and would have served as natural defenses. In addition, the site is located only 1.2 kilometers from Oneida Creek. The site is located on Wassaic silt loam, a moderate soil for crop production that can be prone to drought (Hosbach and Gibson 1980). Only a portion of the site has been excavated and only small sections of the palisade have been found. As a result, the exact area of the site is unknown. The area excavated by Richard

Hosbach and Stanford Gibson was about 3600 m2 and defined the western, northern, and

southern boundaries of the site. Later testing by Jordan Kerber and students from

Colgate University and the Oneida Indian Nation turned up few occupational artifacts 30

meters east of the previous excavation area. At the most the site could have been 5000

m2. The most likely estimate is somewhere between 4000 m2 and 5000 m2. This is less than half the size of the contemporaneous Blowers site. With a density of 12 m2 per

person, this would place the Wilson population between 333 and 416 individuals. The

average of these two numbers, 375 individuals, will be used as the site population for this

study.

The location of the Wilson site has been known since the late 19th century, but

access to the site was restricted for much of the middle part of the 20th century by the

280 landowners (Hosbach and Gibson 1980). Because of this protection, the excavations by

Hosbach and Gibson were some of the first at the site. They encountered very few

subsoil disturbances in any off the areas they tested. There have undoubtedly been

numerous surface collections of the site, but few excavations. Hosbach and Gibson

(1980:26-43) completely uncovered the remains of a longhouse measuring 90 feet by 20

feet, which included several pit features and both external and internal post mold

patterns. They also uncovered portions of two more possible longhouses along with two

sections of the palisade (Hosbach and Gibson 1980:53-57). Artifacts found at the site

include Iroquois pottery, chert projectile points, copper and unidentified metal projectile

points, chert knives, drills, and scrapers, Native-made wampum, a bone September Morn figurine, a bone comb, copper pieces, stone pipes, stone axes, grinding stones, stone net

weight, drilled carnivore teeth, and bone tools and decorative items (Hosbach and Gibson

1980:58-62, 70-92).

The occupation dates are based on the assemblage of glass trade beads found at the site (Sempowski 2004). The assemblage was very similar to that at the Blowers site leading to the identical occupation dates. The similarity of the artifact assemblages at the

Wilson and Blowers sites also suggest that they were occupied at the same time (Bennett

1983:52). There has been some suggestion that the site predates Blowers (Hosbach and

Gibson 1980), but the most current evidence supports a contemporaneous occupation of the two sites.

281 Thurston, 670 (AD 1635-1655)

The Thurston village was built on a plateau on the eastern side of Stockbridge

Valley. The plateau slopes slightly to the east toward the valley below and is protected

by steep slopes on the north, east, and south. The soil under and around the site is

Honeoye loam, a high quality soil for crop production. The site covers an area of 13523 m2, an area large enough to house 1127 people with a density of 12 m2 per person. The

higher density is used on this site because the overall site area increases from the

occupation of the Blowers and Wilson sites to the occupation here and at the Marshall

site. Bennett (1999) speculates that there could not be room for more than 18 or 20

houses measuring 87 feet by 20 feet, the average size of longhouses at Caughnawaga.

This would put the population at no more than 800 assuming eight compartments per

house and five people per family. For this research, the area estimate of 1127 is used.

This site is believed to be the Oneida village visited by van den Bogaert in the winter of 1635 (Snow et al 1996). van den Bogaert’s description of the physical setting of the village is appropriate. The artifacts found at the site are the correct time period

(Bennett 1991). The site resides on a high hill and Oneida Lake could very well be the large river he mentions to the northwest. The site circumference matches the distance around the village van den Bogaert reported, and two lines of palisades have been uncovered just as van den Bogaert mentions in his journal (Whitney 1964). The one discrepancy is that he also noted the village contained 66 houses, and the Thurston site is not large enough to contain 66 longhouses. However, there are no known Oneida sites that would be big enough to house that many dwellings (Bennett 1991). The most logical conclusion is that van den Bogaert’s count was a typo or was a count of something else

282 like the total number of living compartments in all of the houses. If this is the case, the population would be around 660 individuals, which is very close to the 676 derived from the area with a density of 20 m2 per person. Van den Bogaert mentions nothing of disease among the Oneida in this village as he does among the Mohawk.

The location of the site has been known for well over a century and as a result the site has been extensively collected. In addition, the site has been under constant cultivation for almost 90 years (Bennett 1999). However, Theodore Whitney and members of the NYSAA Chenango Chapter carried out formal excavations at the site in the early 1960’s. They uncovered one complete longhouse, part of another longhouse, portions of the stockade, and several pit and postmold features (Whitney 1964). Monte

Bennett along with Chenango Chapter members, Jordan Kerber, and Colgate University students excavated more of the site throughout the 1990’s. In addition to these excavations, Peter Pratt and others excavated burials at the site in 1957 (Pratt 1976).

Artifacts found at the site include Iroquois pottery, kaolin pipes, chert and brass points, brass decorative items, glass beads, stone beads, clay beads, shell beads, iron knives and other tools, a snuff box, one lead shot, antler and bone September Morn figurines, and brass rings (Whitney 1964, Bennett 1991).

The occupation dates are based on the presence of Round Blue Beads

(Sempowski 2004; Bradley 2007:43), the correlation of the site with the historical description of an Oneida site by van den Bogaert (Snow et al 1996), and the similarity of artifacts found at the site with those mentioned in van den Bogaert’s account (Bennett

1991). The reasons for this correlation are explained above. However, this provides only one year, 1635, in which we can definitely say the site was occupied. The Round Blue

283 Beads, which date between AD 1635 and 1645, provide evidence for at least a ten-year

occupation.

Marshall, 669 (AD 1635-1655)

The Marshall site was built on a small knoll about 800 meters south of the

Thurston site. It is at a slightly lower elevation than the Thurston site, but it similarly

overlooks Stockbridge Valley to the east. The only natural protection to the site occurs

on the western side where the slope down to a small stream is very steep. The other sides

slope downward, but they are by no means difficult to traverse. There are several sources

of water nearby: the stream on the western border, a small spring (Pratt 1976), and

Oneida Creek. The soil under and around the site is Miami fine sandy loam. This soil is

not beneficial to agriculture as it drains too readily often causing water shortages for

crops (Pratt 1976:7). The site was likely occupied at the same time as the Thurston site,

but there is no mention of another site in van den Bogaert’s journal during his time with

the Oneida. This seems odd given that the sites are less than a kilometer from one another. The size of the site has also been subject for debate for several years ranging

from 2 to 4.5 acres (Pratt 1976; Wonderley 2006). Based on the surface scatter of

artifacts and the topography, Monte Bennett believes the site occupies the southwestern portion of the aforementioned knoll. The site area is 7938 m2, an area large enough to

hold just under 400 people with a density of 20 m2 per person.

The site area has been under cultivation for almost a century and the location of the Marshall site has been known for even longer. This has without a doubt led to numerous collecting events. Fortunately, the current owners are very protective of the

284 site. Archaeological work has been carried out at the site by Peter Pratt (1976), who

excavated burials, and Richard Hosbach and Chenango Chapter members.

Unfortunately, Richard Hobach passed away before presenting any of his results in

writing. The one notable feature of the site is that the occupational debris is very sparse

leaving many to conclude that the site was no occupied for very long (Pratt 1976; Bennett

2006). It could be that the site was occupied simultaneously with Thurston, but for only a

fraction of the same time. This may explain why there is no mention of the site in van

den Bogaert’s journal. Artifacts found at the site include Iroquois ceramics, antler

figurines and spoons, drilled bear teeth, bone needles, glass and shell beads, brass

ornaments, iron axes and knives, chert and brass projectile points, lead musket balls,

Jesuit buttons, and lead pendants (Bennett and Cole 1976:11-12; Pratt 1976:137-139).

The occupation dates are based on the similarity of the Marshall site artifact

assemblage to that of the Thurston site. This includes Round Blue Beads, which date to

AD 1635-1645 (Sempowski 2004; Bradley 2007:43).

Stone Quarry, 668 (AD 1650-1660)

The Stone Quarry site, or Quarry site, was built on a plateau in the hills of the

eastern slope of Stockbridge Valley. This is the opposite side of the valley of the

Thurston and Marshall sites. These three sites represent the most southerly-placed of all

Oneida villages. The Quarry site is protected by a steep slope on the western and southern sides. The site is currently covered by forest and surrounded by farm fields. The site covers an area of 18,600 m2, an area large enough to house 930 people with a density of

20 m2 per person. This area estimate is based on maps created from excavations by

285 Monte Bennett (Weiskotten 1994b). The site is currently owned by the Oneida Indian

Nation, and the author was denied access to sites under their ownership. Luckily, previous excavations were able to provide data for a site area estimate. The estimate is not as good as those produced with the GPS unit, but it is reliable as it is based on palisade locations, topography, and the location of middens.

The location of the Quarry site has been known for over a century and has been of interest to local archaeologists ever since this time. However, there have been very few formal excavations or reports written about the site. The only recorded work was done by Monte Bennett and Chenango Chapter members from 1979-1982 (Bennett 1984).

They opened 145 5-foot squares and excavated portions of the village and surrounding middens. Portions of two longhouses were found along with a double stockade line on the western side and a triple line on the southern side. Artifacts found at the site include glass, shell, and brass beads, a silver needle, silver utensils, iron knives, iron axes, Native ceramics, gun flints, gun parts, lead seals, brass scraps, brass rings, brass hawk bells, iron mouth harps, a glass button, clay pipe fragments, and chert and brass projectile points

(Bennett 1984:6, 15-33).

The occupation dates for the Stone Quarry site are based on the Tubular Blue

Beads with unfinished ends and the Tubular Red Beads with unfinished ends found at the site (Sempowski 2004; Bradley 2007:43) and the increasing proportion of European utilitarian items. The beads date to AD 1645-1657 (Bradley 2007:43). The assumption with the Oneida sites is that those with a higher proportion of European utilitarian items to traditional utilitarian items were occupied later in time. This helps to order the sites, and the trade beads provide discrete establishment and abandonment dates. In fact, the

286 Stone Quarry site shows a much higher proportion of brass kettles to ceramics and brass

projectile points to lithic points. There is also a substantial increase in wampum and gun

parts (Bennett 1984). All lines of evidence suggest an occupation date after that of the

Thurston site, which is fixed in time by the aforementioned historical reference.

Dungey, 666 (AD 1655-1670)

The Dungey site was built on a plateau on the east side of Stockbridge Valley.

The site has a commanding view of the valley and Oneida Lake can be clearly seen from

the site. There are slopes on the northern and western sides that would have served as natural defenses. The southern and eastern sides are relatively flat and open. This is

proposed to be the site where René Cuillerier was held prisoner in the late 1650’s and

wrote a short account of Iroquois life entitled “Nation Iroquois” (Brandao 2003). The

Dungey site was also the likely site that French Jesuits visited in the winter of 1656-1657

and again in 1663 (JR 44:29-31; 49:127-129). The one piece of settlement data we get

from these accounts is that the village was palisaded (JR 49:129). Unfortunately, that is the extent of our knowledge of the settlement pattern of the site. There is no map of the

site, and the only estimate of site size was 10 acres proposed by Tony Wonderley (2006).

This seems overgenerous considering the Oneida had likely already suffered a severe

depopulation event and also that it would rival some of the largest pre-epidemic Mohawk

and Seneca sites. Without access to the site by outside archaeologists, the settlement characteristics of this critical site will remain a mystery.

The location of the site has been known for several decades, but little formal archaeology has been conducted at the site. Excavations were conducted by members of

287 the Chenango Chapter in the late 1970’s, but little has been published. Bennett (1983:55) reported a possible longhouse measuring 36 feet by 19.5 feet. The artifact assemblage at the site is dominated by European goods and includes brass and copper kettles, axes, knives, awls, scissors, projectiles points, bale seals, Jesuit rings, and gun parts (Hosbach

2004).

The occupation dates for the Dungey site are derived from the glass trade bead assemblage and the correlation of the site with a historical reference. The aforementioned

historical references indicate the site was occupied between 1656 and 1663, at the least.

The presence of Short tubular Red and striped beads with finished ends suggest that the

occupation lasted until at least the late 1660’s (Sempowski 2004; Bradley 2007:43). A

separate date from the diameter of pipe stems found at the site also yielded a date of 1661

(Hosbach 2004).

March, 650 (AD 1655-1670)

The March site was built on a broad, flat area on the east side of Stockbridge

Valley. There is very little natural protection at the site. The land rises steadily on the

southern and eastern sides of the site. To the north, the land remains relatively level, and

there is a gradual down-slope on the western side. The hillside becomes steep down to

Stockbridge Valley about 800 meters west of the site. There are two small streams near the site to the north and south. The area of the site is unknown for several reasons. There has been very little work done at the site, and the Oneida Indian Nation denied access to the author.

288 Very little is known about the March site. Its whereabouts has been known for at

least 20 years because there are collections from the site owned by local residents. No

formal excavations or surveys have been conducted at the site, and almost nothing is

known about the settlement patterns there. Glass beads were included in some of the

collections and provided the necessary means for dating the site.

Although little is known about the March site, there exists a large collection of glass trade beads from the site. These beads are the basis for the occupation dates, as they are very similar to the beads found at the Dungey site (Sempowski 2004), which is fixed

in time by three separate historical references.

Sullivan, 645 (AD 1665-1677)

The Sullivan, or Moot, site was built on an oval-shaped plateau in the hills above

the Stockbridge Valley. The site lies to the east of the valley. Steep slopes surround the

whole site save the southern boundary making a naturally defensible location. The

southern boundary of the site is demarcated by a low area, or ditch that may have been

man-made. The site is bordered to the east by a small stream, and is located under

agricultural fields. The site lies at an elevation of 1010 feet and has a clear view of

Oneida Lake 13 miles to the northwest. While most of the site is likely intact, gravel

mining and collecting has disturbed peripheral portions of the village. The Sullivan site

covers an area of 7846 m2, an area large enough to house 392 individuals with a

population density of 20 m2 per person. This density was applied because it is common

on Mohawk and Onondaga sites dating to the late 17th century.

289 The Sullivan site may be the location at which Father Bruyas established a

mission among the Oneida in 1667. His description of the village location in relation to

Oneida Lake is accurate, and the dating of the site also seems to agree. The Collins site

was also likely occupied at the same time and is near the Sullivan site, but very little is

known about that site. Additionally, the Sullivan site has yielded a large number of Jesuit

rings and paraphernalia (Bennett 1973) suggesting that the site may have been the

location of a mission. If this is the case, Bruyas comments in a letter that two-thirds of

the site is composed of Algonquins and Hurons. These were likely adoptees that served

to replace community members lost to disease and warfare in the previous decades.

The location of the site has been known for several years, and as a result, a significant amount of looting has taken place at the burial grounds and midden areas associated with the site. In the early 1970’s, Monte Bennett and members of the

Chenango Chapter of the NYSAA conducted excavations in the middens and village area of the site (Bennett 1973). They uncovered several post molds, but no structures or palisade sections were delineated. Artifacts found at the site include gun parts, gun flints, iron axes, brass Jesuit rings, chert projectile points, brass projectile points, iron knives,

Iroquois pipes and ceramics, European ceramics and buttons, iron awls, brass bangles, shell beads, glass beads, musket balls, and European coins (Bennett 1973:5-15). Several

types of unidentified animal bones were also recovered along with several elk teeth

(Bennett 1973:11).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the assemblage of glass trade beads and the presence of Jesuit paraphernalia. The existence of Round Red Beads with green cores and no cores suggest a site date between AD 1665 and 1690 (Sempowski 2004;

290 Bradley 2007:184). As mentioned above, the abundance of metal rings suggests that this

is the mission occupied by Jacques Bruyas and Pierre Millet beginning in 1667

(Wonderley n.d.). This information helps to fix this site in time.

Collins, 649 (AD 1677-1685?)

The Collins village was built on a hillside to the east of Stockbridge Valley. The

site is bordered by a steep ravine on the western side but is relatively open on the other

sides. In fact, the land slopes down to the site on the eastern border. The steep ravine

runs down to a stream that could have been a source of potable water. Very little is

known about this site and it has likely been disturbed by both home and road

construction. As a result there is no archaeological description of the site, and there is not

yet any identification of the site in historic records. Needless to say obtaining a site size

measurement is impossible at this time.

The location of the site has been known since at least the early 1970’s when it was

speculated that it may be the village that was burned by Vaudreuil and the French in 1696

(Cole and Bennett 1974:11). However, I believe that this is the site visited by Wentworth

Greenhalgh in 1677 (O’Callahan 1850-1:12). Based on Greenhalgh’s warrior count and

the largely accepted ratio of four people to each warrior for pre-industrial societies, the

Oneida population would have been around 800 people. I know of no formal work done

at this site or of any artifact collections.

Almost nothing is known of the site including its exact place in the site

chronology. However, if it is the site visited by Greenhalgh, then it was likely occupied

291 between the Sullivan and Upper Hogan sites. This suggests occupation dates of AD 1677-

1685.

Upper Hogan, 647 (AD 1685-1696)

The Upper Hogan village was built on a plateau on the northern down slope of

Eaton Hill. Eaton Hill is the name given to the uplands on the eastern side of Stockbridge

Valley. The site is protected on the northern and eastern sides by steep slopes that lead

down to tributary streams of Oneida Creek. There is a narrow access point on the eastern

side and the southern and western sides are relatively open. However, the site lies in a

low area and would have been protected from the prevailing wind by hills on the southern

and western sides. The site is currently covered by cultivated land and unused brush and

light forest. The area of the site is 25,580 m2. This represents the area over which surface

artifacts have been found. The size based on this measurement is large enough to house

1279 people with a density of 20 m2 per person. The lower density is used because the

site dates to the late 17th century when other Mohawk and Onondaga sites are at a similar density. However, this may be over-inflated given the fact that the exact boundaries of

the site are not known.

It has been suggested that this is the possible site of Wentworth Greenhalgh’s visit in 1677 (Bennett and Cole 1974:10). It is also possible that this was the “Counciltown” destroyed by Vaudreuil and the French in 1696 (Bennett and Cole 1974:10). The glass trade beads found at the site suggest the latter.

The location of the site has been known for several decades and the only recorded archaeological work done at the site was surface collecting in the early 1960’s and 1970’s

292 (Bennett 1962; Bennett and Cole 1974). Monte Bennett and Richard Cole, two members of the Chenango Chapter of the NYSAA, surveyed the site in the early 1970’s and reported on the artifacts found. No building remains or features have been reported at the site. Artifacts from the Upper Hogan site include copper and brass scrap, chert projectile points, copper and brass projectile points, brass kettle pieces, thimbles, shell beads, catlinite beads, brass beads, glass beads, bottle glass, spoons, iron knives and axes, iron fish hooks, gun parts, gun flints, lead and pewter pipe stems, Jesuit rings, buttons, musket balls, Iroquois ceramics, European ceramics, kaolin pipe fragments, Iroquois pipe fragments, and iron scissors (Bennett and Cole 1974:2-10).

The Round Black Beads found at the site are the basis for the occupation dates.

They were manufactured between AD 1690 and AD 1700 (Bradley 2007:184). In addition, and as mentioned, this is the most likely site for Vaudreuil’s attack in AD 1696. This sets a definite date of abandonment for the settlement.

Primes Hill, 671 (AD 1696-1720)

The Primes Hill village was built on a high hillside to the east of Stockbridge

Valley. The village proper lies on the southern slope near the top of a very prominent hill. From the this location almost all of Stockbridge Valley and the opposite hills can be seen as well as Oneida Lake even on an overcast day. There are two small streams near the site, one about 500 meters away and the other about a kilometer away. There are no steep ravines or slopes as there are at several other Oneida sites, but the land slopes steadily away from the site in all directions except the north, where the hill rises to its peak. While the land would not have provided natural defenses, the view from the site

293 would have been commanding and it would have been difficult to surprise the community

with an attack. In regards to population, very little settlement work has been done at the site, but there is a historical reference that likely refers to the Primes Hill site. An

Englishmen, William Andrews visited an Oneida site in 1714 and the Oneidas told them that their village contained 1100-1200 inhabitants (Andrews 1714:125). This is the only site that dates to this time period.

The site has been under cultivation for several decades, and as a result, its location has been known for quite some time. However, the farmer who owned the land during the mid-20th century protected the site and allowed very few people to surface collect.

Burials were found and excavated prior to knowledge about the village. The burials are located near the summit of the hill to the north of the village area. In the early 1980’s,

Monte Bennett and members of the Chenango Chapter conducted surface surveys and

excavations at the site. The only features they uncovered in their brief excavations were middens and four post molds, which may have been part of the palisade line (Bennett

1988:3). During their work they uncovered several artifacts including bones, pipe fragments, iron nails, brass bangles, gun flints, lead shot, glass shards, slate beads, glass beads, a hammerstone, European ceramics, chert projectile points, brass projectile points,

Jew’s Harps, brass pieces, rum bottle glass, and scrap iron (Bennett 1988:4).

The Primes Hill site was traditionally thought to have been occupied entirely during the eighteenth century. The presence of Wire Wound Beads, which date between

AD 1715 and 1750, support this view (Bradley 2007:184). However, my reworking of the

chronology suggests that the Upper Hogan site was the village destroyed in 1696. This

means that Primes Hill would have been occupied immediately afterward, and likely in

294 the same year. Also, the site has long been thought to be the location of William Andrews

visit in 1714, as mentioned above. All of this evidence works well with the AD 1696-1720 occupation dates.

Onondaga Sites

The occupational dates for Onondaga site have very recently been reworked

(Bradley personal communication 2006). However, Bradley has not published the data upon which the dates for the sixteenth century settlements are based. As a result, the reasoning behind the dates are only available for a small number of the sixteenth century sites. However, the data behind the seventeenth century occupation dates are available and described below.

295

Location of Onondaga settlements occupied during the AD 1500-1700 period.

Cemetery (AD 1500-1525)

The Cemetery village site was built on a triangular spit of land bordered by streams on the east and west sides. Along these edges the slope is very steep, almost vertical in some locations. The south end of the site is accessible only by a narrow

296 footpath unlike the north end, which opens up into a level, flat area. On the north side,

there is a slight narrowing of the land between the two streams that corresponds with a

slight lowering of the terrain. This spot marks the extent of artifact scatters and is largely

agreed upon to be the northern boundary of the site (Tuck 1971). The village was built

on very productive sandy loams (Tuck 1971), and is very close to water sources. The site

covers 3420 m2, an area that would have housed 285 people with a density of 12 m2 per person. This site has a similar layout to the Mohawk sites of Garoga and Otstungo that date to a similar time period. Thus, I am confident in the application of the 12 m2 per person ratio to this site, the location of the northern terminus of the site, and the calculated area.

The exact date of discovery is unknown, but the presence of Native artifacts was likely known since the late 1700’s because of a cemetery, from which the site gets its name, that was formerly located on the site. Several excavations were conducted in the

1950’s and 1960’s, but no formally recorded work has been done at the site. The site is currently owned by the Fayetteville-Manlius school district and is used at a teaching tool for middle school classes. No structures or features have been recorded at the site (Tuck

1971). Several artifact collections exist, which include over 6,000 pottery sherds, pipe fragments, chert projectile points, hammerstones, anvils, celts, and a slate bead (Tuck

1971:142-145).

The occupation dates for the Cemetery site are based on the ceramic assemblage found there. The pottery closely resembles that found at the Mohawk Garoga site, which lent its name to the phase immediately prior to European contact and was occupied from

AD 1525 to 1545 (Bradley 1987). This name has largely fallen out of fashion, as actual

297 site dates are more useful for discussing the culture and associated changes. The Garoga pottery only places the site to the early parts of the sixteenth century. The duration of occupation, while difficult to estimate, is based on the depth and composition of middens.

Bradley (1987) suggests an occupation time of twenty to twenty-five years. Thus, the date for the Cemetery site is estimated as AD 1500-1525.

Indian Hill II (AD 1500-1525)

The Indian Hill II site represents a very small village or hamlet built on a loaf of land about one mile southwest of Limestone Creek. The site lies adjacent and to the south of the later, contact-period Indian Hill site. The soil underlying the site is Honeoye silt loam, which is a high quality soil for growing crops. The site covers an area of 1609 m2, an area that could have housed 80 individuals with a density of 20 m2 per person.

This measurement is based solely on the slight rise of land found on the site and A.

Gregory Sohrweide’s memory of the extent of the surface artifact scatter. The area calculation is a rough estimate and is the most accurate that I can generate without excavating the site.

The exact date of discovery of the Indian Hill II site is unknown, but extensive excavations and surface collections were conducted in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

Ferdinand and Albert LaFrance conducted some of the first recorded excavations, which were followed up by numerous others including a study by Thomas Neumann and students from Syracuse University (McDowell-Loudan 1984). Most work was conducted with the purpose of identifying the length of and construction technique for the wall posts

298 of a longhouse uncovered at the site. Numerous precontact artifacts were found at the

site with no evidence of European trade goods (McDowell-Loudan 1984).

Similar to the Cemetery site, the Indian Hill II occupation dates are based on the

Garoga-style pottery found there and the composition of the middens (Bradley 1987).

These traits are very similar to those at the Cemetery site, so the site was likely occupied

at the same time.

Nursery, 630 (AD 1525-1550)

The Nursery village was built on a low area bordering on the eastern bank of

Limestone Creek. The location provides very little defense, but the loamy soils around

the site would have been optimal for maize agriculture (Tuck 1971). Little is known

about the settlement of the site as most of was destroyed by the construction of Route 92.

As a result, there has been no settlement data recovered to generate an estimate of the size of the habitation area.

The location of the site has been known since the mid-twentieth century, and only a small number of people know much information about the site. No formal surveys or excavations have been recorded for the site. Artifacts recovered from surface walking by collectors include stone celts, six pottery rim sherds, pipe stems, five projectile points, and nine blanks (Tuck 1971:147-149). My interpretation of the available information is that the Nursery site is a fishing camp or a small hamlet at the most. The location of the site on the valley bottom is not consistent with the higher elevation of earlier, contemporaneous, or later Onondaga sites. It also does not conform with contemporaneous sites from the other Nations like Garoga, Cayadutta, and Olcott.

299 Although very little archaeology has been conducted at the site, the artifacts recovered

also do suggest the presence of a village.

Barnes, 628 (AD 1525-1550)

The Barnes village was built on a broad hill north of Limestone Creek. The site

lies just to the west of a tributary of the creek and is bordered on the east by a steep slope

down to this tributary. This site has been mentioned as being quite large for the time

period, up to six acres (Gibson 1968), but no one has produced an estimate based on

quantitative evidence. The lack of settlement archaeology done at the site prevents an

accurate estimation at this time. In addition, the hill upon which it resides is too large to generate a maximum size.

The site was discovered in 1929 by Stanford Gibson, and several informal surface

surveys and excavations have been carried out by avocational archaeologists since that

time. Gibson conducted several solitary excavations and uncovered numerous postmolds, hearths, and middens. He also identified several small sections of the palisade. This has

led to the conclusion that the site was very large (Tuck 1971), but there simply is not

enough information at this time to create an estimate. No structures have been identified at the site. Artifacts recovered from the site include Native ceramics, chert projectile points, shale beads, shale discs, chert knives, celts, effigy pipes, bone awls, bone fishhooks, bone harpoons, bone discs, and a bear tooth pendant (Tuck 1971:150-156).

Ecofacts recovered at the site include remains of deer, bear, elk, small mammals, and birds in addition to corn, beans, squash, plum, and hackberry seeds (Bradley 1987:37). In

300 addition, fragments of human bone were found in refuse deposits at the site (Bradley

1987:37).

McNab, 616 (AD 1525-1550)

The McNab village was built on a small hill adjacent to the western shore of

Cazenovia Lake. The site is less than a mile from the Barnes site, but considered to be

considerably smaller. It is an unusual location by the shore of the lake. This is not

common for any Haudenosaunee sites of any time period. While several excavations have

taken place at the site, the estimates of its size vary widely. Daniel Weiskotten produced

a map with an elliptical area of 22,972 m2. Furthermore, Thomas Weinman, who has

conducted the majority of the excavations at the site, has estimated the size to be between

five and six acres, or roughly 22,000 m2 to 24,000 m2. However, this seems to include

areas north of the habitation area where only middens and burials have been found. These

estimates seem very large for strictly the habitation area of the village. The successive

villages are much smaller, less than one-quarter the size. In fact, another site does not

reach this size until 1610, when there is good evidence that the Onondaga combine into

one village. It seems unlikely that the McNab village is much more than 5,000 m2, but no

estimation can be made at this time.

The location of the McNab site has been known since the 1800’s (Hammond

1872) when burials were found on the property of the adjacent schoolhouse. Thomas

Weinman, along with other local archaeologists, has surface-collected the site and conducted small excavations, which have produced the bulk of the information about the site including possible settlement remains. One structure, a longhouse, has been partially

301 uncovered at the site (Bradley 1987). Artifacts found at the site include a bone maskette,

Native ceramics, a pestle fragment, stone celts, and Madison type projectile points.

Subsistence remains include mammal bones, bear teeth, clam shell, and corn, beans, and squash (Bradley 1987:37-39).

Atwell, 625 (AD 1550-1570)

The Atwell site was built on a spit of land on the eastern slopes of the Limestone

Creek valley. An intermittent stream borders the north side of the site, and significant sloping occurs on the southern side and below the site to the west. The land beyond eastern side of the site is flat stretching for 200 to 300 meters before rising again. The village portion of the site is small and covers an estimated 1375 m2. This area would have housed 114 people with a density of 12 m2 per person.

The Atwell site, or Atwell Fort site as it is sometimes referred, has been known to collectors for over 100 years (Tuck 1971). Robert Ricklis conducted excavations at the site in the 1960’s and members of the Chenango Chapter of the NYSAA worked at the site around the same time. Ricklis uncovered evidence of palisade postmolds, a piece of a palisade post identified as Eastern Hemlock, a portion of a dwelling, and several hearth features (Tuck 1971:167; Bradley 1987:52). Artifacts found at the site include pottery sherds, clay pipe fragments, stone projectile points, stone scrapers, a chert drill, hammerstones, mortars, a rolled copper bead, a copper pendant, and an iron fragment

(Tuck 1971:168-169).

The occupation dates for the Atwell site are based on the similarity of artifacts— pottery in particular—and the physiographic setting of the site. Both lines of evidence are

302 extremely similar to those of the Temperance House site. In addition, the evidence of early European trade goods place the site in the mid-sixteenth century (Tuck 1971:169-

70).

Temperance House, 626 (AD 1550-1570)

The Temperance House village was built on a high promontory of land bordered

by Limestone Creek to the west. Streams border the site on the western, southern, and

eastern edges with steep embankments between the site and the water. The northern

boundary of the site is flat and accessible. There is a drop in the terrain that was thought

to be evidence of an earthwork by Parker when he visited the site (1922:644).

Regardless, this landscape feature likely marks the northern boundary of the site. The

Temperance House site covers an area of 4163 m2, which is large enough to be occupied

by 346 individuals with a density of 12 m2 per person.

The site was known to collectors by 1849 and was already well picked-over by

the time Beauchamp visited the site. Robert Ricklis conducted the only recorded

excavations in 1963 and 1964. During this work he uncovered portions of the palisade as well as a large section of a longhouse. He also excavated a centrally located hearth in the longhouse (Tuck 1971). The site appears to have been completely palisaded and house construction looks very similar to contact-period descriptions of Haudenosaunee longhouses. Artifacts found at the site include pottery sherds, pipe fragments, Madison- style chert projectile points, hammerstones, netsinkers, celts, stone beads, and stone discs

(Tuck 1971:163-164).

303 The chronological ordering of the Temperance House site is based on the

decreasing frequency of diagnostic artifact types. These suggest that the site was

occupied immediately after the Barnes site (Tuck 1971:164). Also, the presence of trade

goods supports the mid-sixteenth century occupation dates.

Quirk, 623 (AD 1570-1590)

The Quirk village was built on a headland bordered by streams on the

southwestern and eastern sides. The southwestern edge of the village is adjacent to an

almost vertical drop of around 40 feet that terminates with a tributary of Limestone

Creek. The site currently lies under woods, farm fields, and horse pasture.

Ricklis (1966) estimated the site size at two and a half acres, but excavations were

confined to the hillside middens on the southern edge of the slope. No formal or

recorded work has been conducted in the actual village area. My measurement of the

Quirk site area is 2000 m2, which is a little less than half an acre. This measurement is

based on the topography of the site. The site basically forms a rectangle oriented

northwest to southeast with the bottom-right corner taken out. The steep slope on the

southwestern edge of the site creates a definite boundary, and Ricklis’ identification of middens on this border confirms it as a border. The eastern edge of the site was defined by a slight ridge that gives way to a gentle, but significant slope that eventually turns into a steep slope down to another tributary. Below this ridge, the slope appears to be too great for the construction of longhouses and other structures. If longhouses were being built on the eastern slope, this would greatly increase the size of the site. However, building on this slope only occurs at a very small number of Iroquois sites (see the

304 Oneida Cameron site description). The northwestern and northeastern boundaries were

similarly defined by a significant depression in the terrain. This was used in a similar

manner to the depressions that mark the open-side boundaries on the Cemetery,

Temperance House, and Mohawk Garoga sites. This would have been the most

accessible area of the site. The area of 2000 m2 would have accommodated 166 individuals with a density of 12 m2 per person. This size estimation is an educated guess.

Settlement pattern studies at the site would go a long way toward calculating a confident

site area measurement.

The location of the Quirk site has been known since at least the mid-1900’s. As

mentioned, Ricklis’ excavations were restricted to the middens on the southwestern side.

There have been no other formal excavations or identification of features or structures.

Artifacts found at the site include an iron celt, glass beads, rolled brass beads, stone

projectile points, scrapers, bone awls, a wolf canine, stone celts, hammerstones, Native

pipe fragments, and Native ceramics (Tuck 1971:173-174; Bradley 1987:75,78).

The occupation dates for the Quirk site derive from the concentrations of ceramic

types, smoking pipes, and decorative items. These indicate an occupation during the late

sixteenth century (Tuck 1971:174).

Sheldon, 624 (AD 1570-1590)

The Sheldon village site was built on a promontory of land bordered by steep

slopes on the southern and eastern boundaries. The slopes drop several hundred feet in

elevation over a distance of a few meters. The site covers an area of 6643 m2. Using the

density ratio of 12 m2 per person, the population of the Sheldon village is estimated at

305 550 individuals. The site sits on modern farmland, but is fallow at the moment. Tree species around the site include basswood, hickory, and sugar maple. The western side of the site is bounded by a low, damp area that may have been a water source in pre-contact times. In addition, the site was built on a terrace adjacent to and to the east of a larger hill. This hill would have likely served as protection from weather during all months of the year.

The location of the Sheldon site has been known for some time, but no recorded

excavations have been conducted. Undoubtedly, numerous collectors have surface

hunted and excavated at the site over the last century. However, the artifacts recovered

from this work are unknown to the author.

Pickering (AD 1570-1590)

The Pickering site is known only by artifacts recovered from it. There is no current location or settlement information for this site. It was known to local pothunters

during the mid-twentieth century, but those individuals passed away without relaying the

whereabouts of the site (Bradley, personal communication). Bradley (1987:51) presents a

location, but it is unclear what data it is based upon. Additionally, Bradley (1987:50)

believes the site is one of four smaller companion sites to the similarly dated, and larger,

Temperance House, Quirk, and Chase sites. My current measurements disagree with

Bradley’s assessments. The Chase, Sheldon, and Temperance House sites appear to be

the largest over the three occupation periods. Thus, the Pickering site may very well be

one of the large villages, or there may be no large settlement-small settlement pairing at

all. Any size estimate for the Pickering site would be pure speculation.

306

Chase, 636 (AD 1590-1610)

The Chase site was built on a spit of land between two streams. The banks down to the streams are steep and would have provided excellent protection for the site. The

Chase site covers an area of 6927 m2. When the density ratio of 12 m2/person is applied

to this site area, the estimated population for the site is 575 individuals. Hardwood forest

currently covers the site.

The exact date of discovery of the Chase site is unknown, but Arthur Parker knew

of the site in the early 1900’s. Several longhouses were uncovered on the northern end of

the site. In addition, postholes from the palisade were located on the southeast side of the

side along with evidence of a ditch directly outside of the defensive work (Tuck 1971).

Iroquois items dominate the artifact assemblage at the site along with a few European

goods. Artifacts found at the site include stone projectile points, scrapers, stone celts,

hammerstones, bone tools, pipe fragments, ceramics, brass beads, and copper items (Tuck

1971:172).

The occupation dates for the Chase site are based on the presence of Canadian

GBP2 Beads, which date to AD 1600-1614 (Bradley 2007:43).

Dwyer, 635 (AD 1590-1610)

The Dwyer village was built on a high, circular loaf of land that commands an

impressive view to the south of the valley containing the West Branch of Limestone

Creek. There is currently a man-made pond to the north of the site that was likely a

spring and a water source throughout history. The site covers an area of 11,930 m2, an

307 area that could accommodate 596 Onondaga people with a density of 20 m2 per person.

This lower density if used because the site lies on a broad hill that could have afforded

more room per person.

The location of the Dwyer site has been known for several decades at the least,

but no formal excavations or surveys aside from this one have been conducted there.

Several collectors have walked the site, but no structures were recorded. Various artifacts are the only known results from this work. Excavations from graves near the site

uncovered a copper knife with pieces of a leather thong attached, white oak bark, a

copper tube, shell beads. Artifacts found in the village area include copper spirals, white

wampum beads, rolled copper beads, and triangular chert projectile points (Tuck

1971:174-175; Bradley 1987:70-74). Subsistence remains from the site include bones

from white-tailed deer, beaver, black bear, elk, moose, small mammals, birds, fish, and

fresh water mussels (Bradley 1987:53-54).

The Dwyer site has a similar artifact assemblage to the Chase site, resulting in

identical occupation dates (Bradley personal communication 2006).

Pompey Center, 622 (AD 1610-1625)

The Pompey Center site was built on a loaf of land bordered by a steep slope and

the West Branch of Limestone Creek on the western side. There is a more gradual slope

on the northern side of the slope and springs on the eastern border. The site occupies

29,380 m2 giving the village a population of 2448 individuals. This number is generated assuming a density of 12 m2/person, which was common to other Iroquois sites during

the early 17th century. The site is located on modern farmland and unused land. The

308 vegetation surrounding the site includes sugar maples, black walnuts, and cherry trees.

The springs on the south side of the site that may have been used as water sources

historically.

The location of the remains of the Pompey Center site has been known for well

over a century. The site had already been extensively collected and excavated by the

time Beauchamp looked at the site in the early 20th century (Bradley, 1977) Several longhouses were uncovered on the site. One large house sat on the ridge oriented north

to south. The others were located on the western portion of the site on a terrace and

oriented east to west (Sohrweide, personal communication). Portions of the palisade

were uncovered and Beauchamp described the fortifications as being triangular in shape

(Bradley 1977). Artifacts recovered at the site include Iroquois ceramics, brass points,

brass knives, brass ornaments, brass kettle fragments, iron knives, iron axes, Onondaga-

worked iron tools, glass beads, European ceramics, and an iron awl (Tuck 1971:176;

Bradley 1977:2-16).

The occupation dates are based on the presence of Polychrome Beads, which date

to AD 1614-1624 (Bradley 2007:43).

Pratt’s Falls (AD 1625-1635)

Very little is known about this site including any settlement data. Two collectors

reported finding the location of a village site and several artifacts, but these individuals

never disclosed the location of the site (Bradley, personal communication). Bradley

(1987:125) notes the presence of lithic tools, but no other information is known. He also

indicates a location (1987:117), but it is unclear what information this is based upon. As

309 such, the lack of knowledge concerning the Pratt’s Falls site leaves a significant gap in

the Onondaga sequence and our understanding of Onondaga demography and settlement.

The occupation dates are based on the presence of Seed Beads, which date to AD

1624-1635 (Bradley 2007:43).

Shurtleff (AD 1635-1645)

The Shurtleff site sits on a terrace on a large hill overlooking the uplands between

Butternut Creek and Limestone Creek. The site occupies an area of 32,290 m2. Using a

density of 12 m2/person, the estimated population of the site is 2690 people. The site lies on currently-used farmland. The vegetation around the site included upland deciduous trees such as sugar maples, black walnuts, white and red oaks, and cherry in addition to dense stands of staghorn sumac.

It is unknown how long the location of the Shurtleff site has been known. Several

middens have been excavated at the site, and all of them were light in color and shallow

(Sohrweide, personal communication). Several surface collecting episodes have

undoubtedly taken place at the site. However, there are few records of work done at the site or artifacts found there. This supports the short occupation period obtained from artifacts found at the site.

The occupation dates for the site are based on the presence of Round Blue Beads, which date to AD 1635-1645 (Bradley 2007:43).

310 Carley (AD 1645-1650)

The Carley village site was built on a sizeable loaf of land in the uplands between

Butternut Creek and the Limestone Creek. The site was built on 32,620 m2. This gives an estimated population of 2718 with a density of 12 m2/person. The Carley site is the first of three successive Onondaga villages that were occupied for a very short, less than

10 years, period of time (Bradley, personal communication). While short, these residence times are reasonable given the large populations at these sites. Sites occupied by more than 2,000 people were often difficult to sustain in one location for extended periods of time due to the extensive nature of Iroquois agriculture. The site is now located under cultivated fields with upland deciduous trees (e.g. sugar maple, cherry, and black walnut) surrounding three sides of the site. The glaciated soils in the area are well-drained and would have been beneficial for agricultural purposes in the past as it is today (LaFrance and LaFrance 1976).

The date of discovery of the site is unknown, but collectors have excavated at the

Carley site for at least several decades. Part of the site was destroyed by the construction of Hennaberry Road, which has been in use since the 1800’s. Due to this situation, the location of the site boundary on the northwestern corner of the site is uncertain. It was likely underneath or just east of the road because artifact density remains high on the western side of the site, but no artifacts have been found on the eastern side of the road

(Sohrweide, personal communication). Artifacts found at the site include European clay pipes, scissors, thimbles, gun parts, glass beads, Iroquois clay pipes, chert projectile points, and shell decorative items. Very few Iroquois pottery pieces have been found at the site, and the chert projectile points are low in number. There are, however, several

311 examples of Iroquois-made gunflints crafted from local Onondaga chert (DeAngelo

1976).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the presence of Tubular Blue Beads with unfinished ends. These beads were manufactured between AD 1645 and 1650

(Bradley 2007:43).

Lot 18 (AD 1650-1655)

The Lot 18 site was built on a high hilltop in the uplands between Butternut Creek and Limestone Creek. The site occupies 18,400 m2, and using a density of 12 m2/person, this area gives an estimated population of 1530 individuals. The site resides in a cultivated field with a spring on the southwest side of the site and a creek near the eastern border. The Lot 18 site was likely the site of LeMoyne’s visit to an Onondaga village in

1654 (DeAngelo 1976).

The site’s location was known to William Beauchamp in the late 19th and early

20th centuries. It has been extensively collected since that time, and as a result several

middens and possible features have been identified at the site (Tanner 1978). Artifacts

found at the site include eight chert projectile points, copper and brass items, gun parts,

European- and Iroquois-made gunflints, European ceramics, Iroquois clay pipes,

European clay pipes, European religious artifacts, and a large number of glass beads

(Bradley 1976; DeAngelo 1976; Tanner 1978). Iroquois-made artifacts tend to be restricted to non-utilitarian items. Some suggest that this indicates a total replacement of

native tools with European models (DeAngelo 1976).

312 The occupation dates for the Lot 18 site are based on the religious ornaments found at the site. These items indicate that the site was that visited by Father LeMoyne in

1654 (Bradley 1987). The site has also yielded Tubular Blue and Red Beads with unfinished ends. These beads were manufactured between AD 1650 and 1657 (Bradley

2007:43). Funnel bowl pipes marked with “EB”, which were made during the 1650’s, are

also found at the site (Bradley 2007:170)

Indian Castle, 620 (AD 1655-1663)

The Indian Castle village was built on the western side of the West Branch of

Limestone Creek. The eastern side of the site is well-protected by a steep ravine down to

the creek. However, the other three sides of the site are exposed by relatively flat ground.

The site covers an area of 22,790 m2 based on the known location of middens

surrounding the site. This is not as accurate as using palisade post locations, but such

information is not available at the Indian Castle site. This technique was viewed as the

most accurate given the information available. This area would have been able to

accommodate 1139 residents with an occupation density of 20 m2 per person. This

density is used because of the relatively large area that was available to the building

community. This site was long thought to be the small village mentioned by Greenhalgh

when he visited the Indian Hill site (see Tuck 1971). Greenhalgh (O’Callahan 1850:11)

describes, “a small village… consisting of 24 houses”. However, recent interpretations

of archaeological material have led archaeologists to place the Indian Castle site in a time

period too early for Greenhalgh to have visited the site. In addition, the site is much

larger than the small village that he mentions. Greenhalgh was likely talking about a

313 small hamlet associated with the Indian Hill site. Current residents in the area have

mentioned another site near Indian Castle that would put the small hamlet at the correct

distance as mentioned by Greenhalgh, but it has yet to be identified by archaeologists.

The Indian Castle site was likely the Onondaga village inhabited while the French were at

Ste. Marie de Gannentaha during 1656-1658 (Bradley 1987:205; Tanner 2001).

The site’s location has been known for several decades, and has been walked

many times by collectors in that time. A. Gregory Sohrweide walked the site and conducted small excavations to identify the location of middens that would have been created from refuse being dumped over or up against the palisade walls (Sohrweide, personal communication). The boundary of the site for this study was defined based on his maps of the location of these middens. No other features or structures have been

identified at the site. Both Native and European artifacts have been recovered from the

site including shell decorative items, a small number of Native pottery sherds, effigy

pipes, bone combs, Native-made gunflints, religious rings, glass bottle fragments, glass

beads, and Native-worked metal decorative items (Tuck 1971:187; Bradley 1987:205).

As mentioned above, the Indian Castle site was likely the site described by Jesuit

missionaries during their occupation of Ste. Marie de Gannentaha. This places the

occupation of the site in the late 1650’s. The presence of Short tubular Red and striped

beads with finished ends provides further support for this date. These beads were

manufactured from AD 1657 to 1665 (Bradley 2007:43). Funnel bowl pipes marked with

“EB” and “WH”, which were made during the 1650’s and 1660’s, are also found at the

site (Bradley 2007:170)

314 Indian Hill, 619 (AD 1663-1682)

The Indian Hill village was built on a drumlin just to the east of the West Branch

of Limestone Creek. Several older sites are located in close proximity including Indian

Hill II, Cemetery, and Indian Castle. In fact, this site is the likely successor to the Indian

Castle site. The site is currently inaccessible at the request of the landowners. However,

demographic data is available for the site from Wentworth Greenhalgh’s journal from his

1677 expedition among the five Iroquois Nations. He describes the Onondaga village he

visits in this way: “The Onondagoes have butt one towne, butt it is very large; consisting

of about 140 houses, not fenced…”. He goes on to say, “The Onondagoes are said to

about 350 fighting men.” (O,Callahan 1850:11). Both passages give us an indication as

to the population at the Indian Hill site. The most reliable is the mention of 350 warriors.

The common relationship between warriors and total population for Native groups in

North America is one warrior for every four people (Snow and Lanphear 1989). This

puts the Onondaga population at 1400 in 1677. In addition, Greenhalgh counts 140 houses in the village. The site is not large enough to house 140 European-style or Native longhouses. However, I argue that Greenhalgh was counting compartments in the longhouses as separate dwellings. With the common ratio of 10 people per longhouse compartment (see Snow 1995), that would also give us a population of 1400 individuals in 1677.

This site and the adjacent Indian Hill II site have been known since the first

settlers moved into the area in the late eighteenth century (Tuck 1971). In the 1970’s, A.

Gregory Sohrweide and NYSAA Beauchamp Chapter members conducted excavations at

the site and uncovered portions of the palisade on the northern half of the site. Artifacts

315 found at the site include shell decorative items, catlinite and red shale ornaments, effigy

and ring-bowl pipes, bone combs, carved wooden utensils, brass projectile points,

European religious ornaments, European ceramics, glass bottle fragments, glass beads,

kaolin pipes, iron knife blades, an undated Louis XIV medal, several coins, and evidence

of copper sheet working and lead/pewter casting (Tuck 1971:179; Bradley 1987:206).

As mentioned, the Indian Hill site is almost certainly the village visited by

Wentworth Greenhalgh in 1677. This places the occupation of the site in the late 1670’s.

The presence of Round Red Beads with green cores and no cores, which date between AD

1665 and 1690, are also found at the site (Bradley 2007:184).

Weston (AD 1682-1696)

The Weston village site resides on a low hill near a tributary of Butternut Creek.

This is an open setting with nearby springs, which would have provided ample clean

water (Sohrweide 2001). The soils around the site are Honeoye and Lima silt loams,

which are good soils for growing maize with traditional farming techniques. A. Gregory

Sohrweide estimated the site to be around 6.5 acres in size (Sohrweide 2001:1). My GPS

mapping yielded an area of 29,160 m2, which is very close to his estimate. With a density

of 20 m2 per person, the village would have housed 1458 individuals.

A. Gregory Sohrweide’s (2001) work at the site has revealed it to be the most

likely location of Frontenac’s raid on the Onondaga in 1696. During the winter of 1695-6,

Frontenac, the governor of New France decided to take decisive action against in order to

keep Five Nations warriors in their own territory and out of New France. During the

summer of 1696, French soldiers and Indian allies led by Frontenac marched on Five

316 Nation’s territory. The Onondaga and Oneida communities burned their villages and fled

before the army arrived. The French and their allies commenced to destroying what

remained of the towns and the associated food supplies (Sohrweide 2001). The Weston

site is believed to be the remains of the destroyed Onondaga town.

The location of the site has been known for several years, but Mr. Sohrweide is

the only person to conduct formal excavations there. Most of his work focused on the

settlement patterns at the site. Despite not being a formally trained archaeologist, he

conducted very controlled excavations and took meticulous notes. The result is a very

complete look at the layout of the village houses and a large portion of the palisade. Mr.

Sohrweide’s work uncovered numerous postmolds and hearths and included an

experimental reconstruction of a portion of the palisade (Sohrweide 2001). The

postmolds outline several longhouses and storage structures, which are marked by the

absence of hearths and internal divisions. No storage pits were uncovered suggesting that

all storage was above ground (Sohrweide 2001). There is no record of the artifacts

recovered during the excavations.

As mentioned, this is almost certainly the site of Frontenac’s raid in 1696. This sets a known abandonment date for the site. The presence of Round Black Beads at the site suggests occupation between AD 1690 and 1700 (Bradley 2007:184).

Jamesville (AD 1696-1720)

The Jamesville site is located on a broad hill immediately east of Butternut Creek.

The site covers 38,630 m2. This site was originally thought to be the site of the

Frontenac’s attack on the Onondaga in 1696, and there is a stone monument to that event

317 near the site today. However, excavations at the Weston site have brought this idea into

question (Sohrweide). At this point, the Weston site appears to be the more logical

choice for the site of Frontenac’s raid based on chronological considerations and the

layout of the site. Using a density of 20 m2 per person, the site would have housed 1930

individuals. The site resides in a cultivated field bordered on three sides by black walnut,

elder, cherry, and sugar maple trees. The soils are clay loam.

The Jamesville site has been known to local collectors and archaeologists for over

100 years. Excavations were conducted by Ethel Fine, a graduate student at Syracuse

University in the 1950’s and by Peter Pratt in the early 1960’s. Portions of the palisade have been uncovered, but little is known about the longhouses at the site (Tuck 1971).

The site has several associated middens, three of which were removed in the early 1800’s when the site was first used for farmland by Euro-American settlers. Artifacts recovered from the site include brass kettles, wooden ladles, scissors, Iroquois pipes, European pipes, gun parts, bone combs, and a large number of glass beads (Tuck 1971:188).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the presence of Round Black Beads and Polychrome Revival Beads. The former date to AD 1690-1700, and the latter date to

AD 1700-1715 (Bradley 2007:184).

318 Cayuga Sites

Very little is known about the settlement at Cayuga sites. There are undocumented references to settlement data and artifacts in several sources. However, the reliability of the original sources of the data is unknown. The dates listed below are those estimated by Robert DeOrio based on the location of the sites, the physiographic setting of sites, the ceramic assemblages, and the diameter of smoking pipe stems. These dates are too be read as rough estimates. This lack of chronological control is not overly problematic to this research. There is not enough settlement data to estimate population sizes at the large majority of the sites, and the chronological data is used only sparingly in the settlement ecology research. Thus, the roughly estimated dates have very little impact on the results and discussion found in this research.

319

Location of Cayuga settlements occupied during the AD 1500-1700 period.

Landon (AD 1450-1525)

The Landon village site lies on a plateau west of Little Salmon Creek. The area is

devoid of defining topographic features and no settlement research has been conducted at

320 the site (Niemczycki 1984). No accurate site size measurements or population estimates

are possible at this time.

Ceramics are the only recorded artifact class recovered from the site (Niemczycki

1984).

The occupation dates are based on the ceramic styles found at the site. Ninety-five

percent of the rimsherds had incised collars, and less than five percent had corded collars.

This is consistent with Chance Phase sites across Iroquoia (Niemczycki 1984:118). The

Chance Phase is the term traditionally used for the cultural markers of the late fifteenth century and first years of the sixteenth century.

Colgan (AD 1450-1525)

The Colgan village site resides on a plateau to the west of Little Salmon Creek.

This a very open setting with few defining topographic boundaries. Water would have

been plentiful and in close proximity. No settlement work has been conducted at the site

(Niemczycki 1984), so there is no means for measuring the site size or estimating the

population size.

Peter Pratt excavated the site. The only recorded artifacts from the site are

ceramics (Niemczycki 1984).

The ceramics found at the site suggest an occupation during the Chance and

Garoga Phases, the names traditionally applied to the periods just prior to European contact, occupation (Niemczycki 1984:117).

321 Mahaney-Colgan (AD 1450-1525)

The Mahaney-Colgan village site lies on the top of a broad hill to the west of

Little Salmon Creek. There are no defining topographic features around the site, and there is no record of any type of archaeological research at the site. This situation prevents and measurement of site size or estimation of population size.

There is no record of any artifacts that have been found at the site.

Weir (AD 1450-1525)

The Weir (also called Carpenter) village site is located approximately two and a

half kilometers east of Cayuga Lake. The site resides on a terrace protected by slopes on

two sides. There is a record of a portion of the palisade line and middens being identified

at the site (Niemczycki 1984:129). However, the whereabouts of these features are now

unknown to anyone working in the area. Thus, there is no means for measuring the size

or estimating the population.

Pottery shards are the only recorded artifacts from the site (Niemczycki,

1984:118).

The occupation dates derive from the ceramic styles found at the site. Ninety

percent of the rimsherds have incised collars, and less than three percent have corded or

linear collar motifs (Niemczycki 1984:118). This is similar to the Landon and Colgan

sites, and consistent with other Haudenosaunee sites occupied during the late fifteenth

and very early sixteenth centuries.

322 Klinko (AD 1450-1525)

The Klinko village site resides west of Cayuga Lake. There are no defining

topographic boundaries. Today, there are low, marshy lands in the area that would have

likely provided water and wild faunal and floral resources during the occupation of the

village. The village is believed to be palisaded (Niemczycki 1984), but there is no other

information about the settlement patterns at the site. This prevents any site size

measurement of population estimate.

The only recorded artifacts recovered from the site are ceramics (DeOrio 1980).

The occupation dates for the site derive from the ceramic assemblage and

physiographic setting (Niemczycki 1984:118). Fortified, hilltop villages are characteristic

of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries across Iroquoia. In addition, pottery styles include Richmond Incised, Cayuga Horizontal, and Otstungo Notched

(Niemczycki 1984:118). The Mohawk Otstungo site, which provides the name for the pottery style, was occupied at the turn of the sixteenth century. Thus, the Klinko site was given similar dates of occupation.

Indian Fort Road (AD 1525-1550)

The Indian Fort Road site is located on a low, but steep-sided hill. The site is

elliptical in shape with the north south axis being the longest. It lies close to several

sources of water including Toughannock Creek and a spring (Herrick 1897:87). The site

covers a maximum area of 22,000 m2, which is an area large enough to house 1800 individuals at a density of 12 m2 per person. At 20 m2 per person, the site could

accommodate 1100 people. This is a very large site for this time period, but we do see

323 similarly large sites among the Oneida at similar times. It is likely that the Oneida sites

were occupied at 20 m2 per person at this time (see Appendix 2 for a description of the

sites and explanation of the application of the higher ratio). The site was well-protected

by natural slopes on the southern half of the site. The northern half of the site was defined by low earthen defensive works, and also had a palisade during its occupation.

As a result of the presence of earthworks, the location of the site has been known since the mid-nineteenth century (Child 1868; Herrick 1897). Jones and Jones (1980)

conducted excavations of the earthworks and found evidence of timber lacing in the earthworks and palisade construction. They also found burned wood and reddened soil indicating that the palisade had been burned. There was no evidence to support any type of violence associated with this event. No settlement data has been reported. Artifacts found at the site include Haudenosaunee pottery, grinding stone, and remains of wooden palisade posts (Jones and Jones 1980).

The occupation dates come from the ceramics found at the site and physiographic setting of the site (Niemczycki 1984:118). Indian Fort Road was a heavily fortified village, and these types of villages were primarily occupied during the early sixteenth century across Iroquoia.

Parker Farm (AD 1525-1550)

The Parker Farm village site resides southwest of Cayuga Lake on a ridge immediately east of Taughannock Creek. Natural barriers would have protected one side

of the site and Niemczycki (1984) suggests that the site may have been fortified.

However, there is no archaeological evidence to support this assertion. Kathleen M.S.

324 Allen has conducted some settlement research at the Parker Farm site, but not enough to

establish site boundaries. Thus, determining an accurate site size is not possible at this

time.

Artifacts found at the site include pottery sherds (Niemczycki 1984:118).

The occupation dates are based on the ceramics found at the site. The presence of

Genoa Frilled-style pottery suggests the site was occupied during the first half of the

sixteenth century (Niemczycki 1984:118).

Carman (AD 1550-1600)

The Carman village site lies on a ridge immediately south of Taughcannock

Creek. The site is protected on two sides by the creek and a small tributary. The streams

and associated slopes would have provided protection and water. Currently, no settlement data exists for the site. This situation prevents any attempt to determine a settlement size.

In addition, the land around the site is not well-defined on all sides by slopes. It would be difficult to even estimate a maximum possible size. As a result, there is no population estimate for this village site.

Harrison Follette knew about the site in the 1950’s and published two descriptions of the artifacts found there (Follette 1953, 1957). This is the earliest Cayuga village site with evidence of Eurpean-made items. Native ceramics have also been recovered at the site (Niemczycki 1984).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the European-made artifacts found here (Niemczycki 1984:117). The artifacts found are similar to the earliest found on other

325 Haudenosaunee sites. These items tend to appear during the latter half of the sixteenth century.

Locke Fort (AD 1585-1600)

The Locke Fort village site resides on a ridge of land between two tributaries of

the Owasco Inlet. The site is located to the west of the inlet. This location would have

provided ample defense with its physiographic location alone. The northern, southern,

and eastern sides would have been well protected by steep slopes. Unfortunately, the lack

of settlement research and open setting on the western side prevent the accurate

measurement of the site area. As a result, no population estimate is available at this time.

The village is believed to be fortified (Niemczycki 1984).

Ceramics and smoking pipes have been recovered from the Locke Fort site

(DeOrio 1977, 1980).

The occupation dates derive from pottery, pipes, and European trade items found

at the site. The pottery and smoking pipes suggest a Late Prehistoric occupation. The

trade items indicate that the site was occupied after AD 1550 (Niemczycki 1984:118).

Genoa Fort (AD 1600-1620)

The Genoa Fort village site resides on a ridge of land immediately west of Big

Salmon Creek. The site would have been protected on the western boundary by the creek

and associated sloping terrain. In addition, the creek would have provided a good water

source for the village. Niemczycki (1984:130) reports that fire pits, storage pits and post

molds have been identified at the site. There is also speculation of palisade remains.

326 However, she provides no reference for these findings, and there is no existing

knowledge of similar data in other sources. This and the lack of defining topography

prevents any measurement of the size of the site. Thus, a population estimate is not

possible at this time.

The location of the Genoa Fort site has been known since the 1800’s, and a large

number of people were known to have dug at the site since its discovery (DeOrio 1999).

The only recorded artifacts from the site are ceramics (Niemczycki 1984).

The occupation dates are based on the comparison of the artifact assemblage with

that of other Haudenosaunee sites. The assemblage looks very similar to those occupied

AD 1570-1630 (Niemczycki 1984:117). The currently agreed upon date for the site is AD

1600-1620 (DeOrio 1978).

East Genoa (AD 1600-1620)

The East Genoa village site lies on a plateau of land immediately east of Big

Salmon Creek. The location of the site and vague references to artifacts found there by collectors are the only recorded information available.

The occupation dates for the site are based on the similarity of the material found at the site to that found at the Genoa Fort site (DeOrio personal communication 2007).

Myers Fort (AD 1620-1640)

The Myers Fort village site is located equidistant between Cayuga Lake to the

west and Owasco Outlet to the east. It sits atop a broad hill and is bordered on the north

by a small stream. No information exists on the settlement patterns at the site. Robert

327 DeOrio has conducted a number of surface collections at the site, but not enough work

has been done to delineate the site boundaries. No site measurement or population

estimate is possible at this time.

Artifacts recovered from the site include buttons, native-made gunflints, kaolin

pipes, and Jesuit paraphernalia (DeOrio, personal communication).

Garrett (AD 1640-1650)

The Garrett (also called Tile Kiln and Culley’s) village site is located equidistant between Cayuga Lake to the west and Owasco Outlet to the east. Salmon Creek runs immediately to the east of the site. Very little archaeological work has been conducted at

the site and nothing is known of the settlement patterns or site extent. An accurate site

size measurement or population estimate is not possible at this time.

There is no record of artifacts recovered from the site.

St. Stephen (AD 1650-1670)

The St. Stephen village site is located approximately 300 meters east of Cayuga

Lake. The site resides on a low, broad hill at the northern end of the lake. Several individuals have surface collected at the site, but no formal work has been conducted to

determine settlement patterns. There is not enough information to measure the site size

accurately or to estimate a population size.

There is no record of the artifacts that have been recovered from the site.

328 The occupation dates are based on the fact that Jesuit missionaries first visit the

Cayuga in 1656 (DeOrio 1999:20). The St. Stephen site is believed to be one of the two

missions established among the Cayuga.

St. Rene (AD 1650-1670)

The St. Rene village site is located in the Montezuma Swamp north of Cayuga

Lake. The site lies on a low hill above, but in the middle, of the marsh. The hill rises 100 feet above the marsh. Very little is known about the site except that it was one of the

Jesuit Mission sites of the late seventeenth century. Not enough information exists on

settlement patterns to measure site size or estimate a population size. There is very little

to connect the ethnohistoric record at this time to the site, so this information is of little

help.

There is no record of artifacts recovered from the site.

The occupation dates are based on the fact that Jesuit missionaries first visit the

Cayuga in 1656 (DeOrio 1999:20). The St. Rene site is believed to be one of the two missions established among the Cayuga.

St. Joseph (AD 1670-1710)

The St. Joseph village site lies equidistant between Cayuga Lake and Owasco

Lake. The site resides on a flat area and a small stream runs along the western edge.

Several people have surface collected at the site, but little work has been done to

determine the boundaries of the site or the layout of settlement features. A site size

measurement is not possible at this time. This makes a population estimate based on

329 settlement features impossible. However, there are two separate historical references that provide population data. In 1677, Wentworth Greenhalgh visited the Cayuga villages and noted that they had three towns and “they do in all consist of about 100 houses”

(O’Callahan 1850-1:12-13). It is unclear whether he meant that each village had 100 houses or that the three villages combined had 100 villages. Regardless, he mentioned that the Cayuga had 300 fighting men (O’Callahan 1850-1:12-13). Assuming a 1:4 warrior to total population ratio, the Cayuga would have had 1200 individuals in 1677 when St. Joseph’s, Cranebrook, and Young Farm were occupied. In 1688, the Jesuit

Father de Carheil wrote that the Cayuga towns contained 2000 individuals and 300 warriors (Follett 1947:39). He was chased from the Cayuga region in 1684, so he was likely writing about the Cayuga population in that year. Although the warrior counts are the same, de Carheil’s population is much large than I assumed given a 1:4 ratio. It is almost a 1:7 ratio. I use Father de Carheil’s population count in this research because it is a direct count. However, I do not use the 1:7 ratio on any of the other nations because 1:4 is the more accepted number and I assume that the Cayuga case is an exception to this generalization. Assuming equal sizes among the three village occupied at this time, the

St. Joseph village would have housed 667 individuals.

There is no record of artifacts recovered from this site.

The occupation dates come from the correlation of the site with the villages visited by Wentworth Greenhalgh in 1677 and Father de Carheil in 1688.

330 Cranebrook (AD 1670-1710)

The Cranebrook (also called Hammond-Healy) village site is located on a plateau

four-and-a-half kilometers west of Owasco Lake. A small stream runs along the western

border of the site. Very little archaeological work has been undertaken here, and no formal settlement excavations have been done. There is no reliable means to measure the site size at this time, and no means for estimating population size based on settlement features. I can estimate a population size from the ethnohistoric information outlined for the St. Joseph site above. Using Father de Carheil’s population estimate and assuming the three simultaneously occupied sites were identical in size, the Cranebrook site would have housed 667 individuals.

There is no record of the artifacts recovered from this site.

The occupation dates come from the correlation of the site with the villages visited by Wentworth Greenhalgh in 1677 and Father de Carheil in 1688.

Young Farm (AD 1670-1710)

The Young Farm (also called Great Gully) village site is located immediately south of Great Gully, a deep gully cut by a stream running west into Cayuga Lake. The site lies on a relatively flat area and the steep slopes of the gully define the northern

boundary of the site. However, little else is known about the extent of the site. Several

people have surface collected at the site, but little is known about the settlement patterns

there or extent of occupation. This prevents any accurate measurement of the site or

population estimate. Similar to the St. Joseph and Cranebrook sites, I can use Father de

Carheil’s population estimate to determine the population at this site. Using the

331 information described above and the assumption that the three villages occupied at this

time were the same size, the Young farm village would have housed 666 individuals.

There is no record of the artifacts recovered at this site.

The occupation dates come from the correlation of the site with the villages visited by Wentworth Greenhalgh in 1677 and Father de Carheil in 1688.

Seneca Sites

The Seneca site dates were originally based on a chronology developed by starting with known occupation dates from historically mentioned late seventeenth century sites and working backward through time. Originally, this chronology identified the order of non-dated sites based on the relative frequencies of native and European artifacts found at individual sites. The assignment of dates was based on the assumed average Iroquoian occupation time of 20 years. Since the formation of this original chronology in the 1950’s, several researchers have worked to refine the dates of occupation for each of the known settlements. Thus, although archaeologists specializing in past Haudenosaunee culture largely agree upon the dates, the dates are estimates and should be viewed as such. The results of this research are described below in the site descriptions.

332

Location of Seneca settlements occupied during AD 1500-1700 period.

Belcher (AD 1540-1560; Eastern Seneca)

The Belcher village was built on a narrow loaf of land bordering a tributary of a tributary of Honeoye Creek. The site is situated in a southwest to northeast manner and the tributary stream defined the northwestern boundary. The land drops steeply on this side, and

333 the site is about 15 feet above the stream. The land drops off gradually on the southeastern side as well at enough of a grade that it is unlikely that dwellings were built off the loaf of land. The southwestern end drops off as well. Only the northeastern side opens up to flat land. Land to the east of the site rises to a much higher hill. The area of the loaf of land was measured at 11,628 m2, and area large enough to house 969 individuals with a density of 12 m2 per person. The smaller ratio was used because the site is located on a plot of land with restricted building area.

It is unknown how long the location of the site has been known to archaeologists, but recorded excavations took place in 1935 and a survey in 1962 by the RMSC (RMSC).

Burials at the site have been dug as well (RMSC). Artifacts found at the site include pottery, worked bone, refuse bone, chert flakes, pipe fragments, worked shell, shell, and projectile points (RMSC).

The occupation dates for the Belcher site are based on the similarity of artifacts found there with those found at the successive Culbertson and Reed sites. In addition, no European trade items have been recovered from the site, indicating a mid-sixteenth century occupation.

The orientation of burials also suggests that this is one of the earliest sites in the Seneca sequence (Wray et al 1991).

Richmond Mills, 1036 (AD 1540-1560; Western Seneca)

The Richmond Mills village was built on a narrow tongue of land between Reed’s

Creek and a small tributary of the Hemlock Outlet. The site lies at an elevation of 980 feet.

Steep ravines leading down to these bodies of water define the northern and southern boundaries of the site. The streams formed only very narrow openings at the eastern and

334 western ends of the site. Overall the site has excellent natural protection on par with the

Oneida Cameron site and the Onondaga Chase site. The site covers an area of 17,000 m2, an area large enough to house 1417 people at a density of 12 m2 per person. The higher density

ratio is used because of the location of the site on a ridgetop with restricted building space

and because the site was occupied during the mid-sixteenth century when archaeological evidence indicates that intergroup tensions were high and defense was important (Snow

1994).

Several excavations have taken place at the Richmond Mills site, mostly concentrating on the burial loci. However, Charles Hayes and volunteers excavated a longhouse measuring 45 feet by 20 feet at the site in 1966. The structure had very defined, square corners and a line of postmolds bisecting the shorter axis (Hayes 1967b:30). Artifacts found at the site include pottery, chert projectile points, effigy and non-effigy smoking pipes, turtle shell rattles, ceramic maskettes, stone, shell, and ceramic gaming discs, animal bone pendants, shell beads and pendants, slate gorgets, a fragment of a brass ring, bone combs, bone harpoons, a stone celt, abrading stones, and sinew stones (Sempowski 2001).

Subsistence remains found at the site include carbonized maize kernels (Sempowski 2001).

The occupation dates for the Richmond Mills site are based on the similarity of artifacts found there and those found at the successive Adams site. The kinds of artifacts found are very similar except that the Richmond Mills site does not contain European trade items (Wray et al 1991). This indicates that the site was occupied during the mid-sixteenth century before the trade began among the Haudenosaunee and neighboring groups. The orientation of burials also suggests that this is one of the earliest sites in the Seneca sequence

(Wray et al 1991).

335

Culbertson (AD 1570-1585; Eastern Seneca)

The Culbertson village was built on a high hill immediately bordering a tributary of

Honeoye Creek. It lies at an elevation of 1070 feet, and is protected by prevailing winds by a

higher hill to the west. The soil surrounding the site is classified as Honeoye loam, which is a

well-drained soil conducive for growing crops with Seneca farming techniques. The size of

the site has been estimated several times, including in this research. Based on surface artifact

scatters and the location of cemeteries, the boundary of the site was walked by Martha

Sempowski with a survey wheel to determine the circumference. The resulting area was

21,004 m2. This research measured the site as 22,685 m2, the average of two GPS mapping

episodes. The average of Sempowski’s measurement and one obtained here, 21,845 m2, is

used in this study. With a density of 20 m2 per person, the village would have housed 1092

individuals. This ratio is appropriate given the site’s location on a broad hill. The site was

likely occupied at the same time as the Adams site, and was the eastern Seneca counterpart to

that site.

The site may have been known by E.G. Squier during his survey of sites in New York

State in 1848, but it is unclear whether his references to a fortified site in this area was the

Culbertson site. Charles F. Wray and Donald G. Cameron located the site in 1967, but no

evidence of a palisade or earthwork has been found to confirm the identity as the site in

Squier’s writing (Wray et al 1987). Almost all archaeological work conducted at the site has

been done on the burial locus located on the western border of the site. Very little settlement

research has been undertaken. Artifacts found at the site include a cut bear maxilla, a turkey

bone awl, brass beads, brass decorative items, Native ceramics, chert cores, flakes, scrapers,

336 and projectile points, hammerstones, iron tools, animal hide and leather, cordage, shell beads

and ornaments, drilled animal teeth, and bark (Wray et al 1987:193-220). Subsistence

remains include hickory nuts and seeds from red raspberries and squash (Wray et al

1987:214).

The occupation dates for the site derive from the existence of early European trade

items found there. This site yielded some of the earliest trade items as well as several native artifacts that are similar to earlier Seneca sites. The proportions of European items and these earlier, traditional items suggest a date in the mid- to late sixteenth century (Wray et al 1987).

Reed (AD 1570-1585; Eastern Seneca)

The Alva Reed village was built on a terrace on the eastern slope of a large hill

situated between a tributary stream and the Hemlock Outlet. The site sits at an elevation of

1050 feet and the crest of the hill immediately to the west blocks the prevailing westerly

winds. This site is believed to be a satellite village of the Culbertson site and in support of

that the site lies within a mile and half of Culbertson, has produced similar dated artifacts,

and is situated in a location very similar to its proposed parent site (Wray et al 1987). The

plateau on which the site resides measures 17,951 m2. However, collectors walking the

surface estimated that the site only covered about two to three acres on this plateau.

Assuming two and a half acres, the site is around 10,118 m2 in size. This is an area large

enough for 843 people at a density of 12 m2 per person. The higher density ratio was used

because the site was occupied during the more turbulent times of the late sixteenth century. It

must be noted that this size and population estimate are very rough given how little work has

337 been done at the site. However, the measurement of the size of the plateau does restrict the

maximum size of the site.

Archaeologists have known the Reed site since around 1900 when Alva Reed found

artifacts on her property. Charles Wray, Donald Cameron, and Albert Hoffman conducted

limited excavations of refuse middens (Wray et al 1987). No formal excavations have taken

place at the site. Artifacts excavated from the site include Native ceramics, chert flakes,

chert projectile points, a Native ceramic pipe fragment, and a stone netsinker (Wray et al

1987:230-235). Subsistence remains include burned deer bones, a squirrel bone, and a clam

shell fragment (Wray et al 1987:230, 235).

The occupation dates for the Alva Reed site are based on the similarity between ceramics found there and those found at the Culbertson site (Wray et al 1987). The sites also

reside in almost identical physiographic settings and near one another. The common

conception is that they were paired settlements.

Adams (AD 1575-1590; Western Seneca)

The Adams village was built on a high hill just to the west of Spring Brook. The site

lies 50 feet above the stream and the associated valley. A hill on the western side of the stream provides shelter from prevailing winds (Wray et al 1987). The surrounding soil is classified as Ontario Loam, which is a deep and well-drained soil with high lime content

(Wray et al 1987). This is productive soil and would have been good for Seneca farming techniques. The owner denied access to the site, but the site has been mapped several times and the area has always been measured in the vicinity of 10 acres. A more accurate estimate is 39,580 m2, which is based on the interpolated palisade line from excavations, the extent of

338 surface artifact scatter, and the presence of burial plots near the site. With 20 m2 per person, this area would have housed almost 1979 individuals. Haudenosaunee sites were more densely occupied during this period, but there is very little evidence from other Iroquoian cultures of a single community exceeding 2500 people. This is not usually seen among shifting agriculturalists (Snow 1994). Until evidence proves this not to be true, lower densities will be used in this study to keep community estimates under 2500.

The location of the Adams site has been known since the early 19th century. General

Robert Adams first cleared the land and brought the site remains to the attention of E.G.

Squier in 1848 (Wray et al 1987). Traces of a palisade and embankment were still visible on the surface at that time, so Squier’s maps and measurements should provide accurate information as to the size of the site. Several recorded excavations have taken place at the site, but they have focused on the burials located around the village perimeter. Very little settlement work has been done since Squier mapped the fortifications. Squier excavated burials in 1848 and Charles F. Wray and Harry Schoff completely excavated two burial loci in 1951. They also excavated some of the peripheral middens with Donald Cameron in 1951

(Wray et al 1987). Artifacts found at the site include bone combs, bone awls, harpoons, fish hooks, Seneca pottery, brass beads, shell beads, bone beads, glass beads, polished fossils, cut wolf and bear jaws, turtle shell rattle, human skull rattle, brass ornaments, iron tools, clay pipes, stone pipes, animal hide and leather, wood fragments, stone celts, and chert bifaces and projectile points (Wray et al 1987:35-166). Subsistence items found at the site include bones from beaver, bear, deer, fox, porcupine, squirrel, weasel, loon, passenger pigeon,

turtle, and unidentified fish (Wray et al 1987:113). Plant remains from the site include

339 gourds, plum pits, hickory nuts, and seeds from cherries, squash, and red raspberry (Wray et

al 1987:136).

The occupation dates for the Adams site are based on several lines of evidence.

Pottery at the site indicates closer ties to earlier, pre-contact sites than those occupied during later periods. Antler comb forms link the site to earlier settlements, and raccoon penis bones

and bear molar pendants are found in abundance at the earlier Richmond Mills site (Wray et

al 1987:253). Several other artifacts are found at the Adams site and are only found at earlier

sites as well (Wray et al 1987). The presence of every early European trade items suggests a

date in late sixteenth century. Further, the presence of a small number of Kidd Type IIa24

beads suggest the late sixteenth century occupation dates listed above.

Johnston (AD 1575-1590; Western Seneca)

The Johnston site was built on the south bank of Kinney Creek in a relatively low and

sheltered location. Hills immediately to the west protect the site from westerly winds. The

Johnston site is believed to be the satellite village of the Adams site. It is located

approximately one and one-quarter miles from the Adams site and has produced similar

artifacts (Wray et al 1987). The site was built on sand knolls, which were mined in the mid-

1900’s destroying almost the entire site (Wray et al 1987). This prevents any accurate

measurement of the site size. Wray et al (1987:236) estimate that the site was between two

and three acres in extent. This would be an area between 8100 m2 and 12,140 m2. At 12 m2 per person, the populations with these two areas would be 675 and 1010, respectively. The average of the two areas is 10,120 m2, an area that could have housed 843 people at the same

340 ratio. Given the limited information that we have or will be able to obtain from this site, this

population estimate is as accurate as we can get.

The site was destroyed around the turn of the twentieth century, and it was probably

brought to the attention of archaeologists because of that event. A portion of the site

bordering on Kinney Creek is still intact and has produced artifacts. Charles Wray and

Donald Cameron collected at the site (Wray et al 1987). Artifacts found at the site include

Native ceramics, chert shatter and flakes, and fire-cracked rock. Subsistence items included

burned bone of which one has been identified as a fragment of a bear sacrum (Wray et al

1987:237).

The occupation dates for the Johnston site are based on the similarity of pottery styles

between the ceramics found there and those found at the Adams site (Wray et al 1987).

Tram (AD 1580-1595; Eastern Seneca)

The Tram village was built in a high hill near several tributary streams and swamps.

The site sits at an elevation of 1050 feet and is well protected by steep gradients on the north

and west sides. The soil around the site is classified as Ontario Loam (Wray et al 1991), which is a deep and well-drained soil that would have been good for Haudenosaunee farming techniques. The site lies in close proximity to both the Adams and Culbertson sites. Like many of the Seneca sites, higher hills to the west of the site would have provided some shelter from the prevailing westerly winds. The site has been mapped several times, and

E.G. Squier created his maps based on a ditch and earthwork that surrounded the site. This map has been refined by surface artifact mapping by Charles F. Wray and others leading to a size estimation of 20,820 m2, an area large enough to house 1735 people with 12 m2 per

341 person. This ratio is appropriate based on the dating of the site to the late sixteenth century.

The size of the site is considered very accurate based on the topography, existing maps, the distribution of surface artifacts, and the location of cemeteries.

The location of the site has been known since the early 1800’s, and much like the

Adams site was brought under the attention of E.G. Squier by General Robert Adams. Squier mapped the site in 1848, and Arthur C. Parker conducted a survey and excavations at the site in 1910 and 1911 for the New York State Museum (Wray et al 1991). A portion of the northern end of the site was excavated in 1986 during a field school under the supervision of

Mary Ann Niemczycki and Lyn Cowan (Wray et al 1991). The earlier excavations focused on the burial loci, while the latter was conducted in the settlement area of the site in an attempt to locate portions of the palisade. Artifacts found at the site include bone and antler combs, antler flakers, bone awls, bone beads, bone fish hooks, a bone harpoon, a human skull gorget, a bone maskette, iron knives and tools, turtle shell rattles, brass and copper ornaments and beads, brass bells, leather, Native ceramics, stone celts and whetstones, chert cores, flakes, bifaces, scrapers, and projectile points, glass beads, shell beads, Native ceramic pipes, stone pipes, and animal tooth pendants (Wray et al 1991:43-164). Subsistence remains found at the site include bones from deer, elk, duck, passenger pigeon, and turtle and seeds from squash, raspberry, maize, and Canada plum (Wray et al 1991:117, 145).

The occupation dates for the Tram site derive from the glass beads found there. There are a minimal amount of beads from the blue/white bead complex, which dates to the first decade of the seventeenth century at the site (Wray et al 1991). This indicates that the Tram site was either occupied at the very beginning of this complex or at the very end. Several similarities in artifact types between the Tram and the earlier Adams site suggest that it was

342 occupied before the blue/white complex and possibly at the very beginning (Wray et al

1991).

Brisbane (AD 1590-1605?; Western Seneca)

Very little is known about the Brisbane site except the location of an associated cemetery. The site is very likely located on a long hill that rises above most of the surrounding landscape. All that is known from the site is the existence of large dark stains on the hilltop that measured 5-10 meters in diameter. No archaeological investigations have taken place at the site. As a result any measurement of the site area would be a complete guess and therefore of no help in this research. The site was likely the western counterpart to the eastern Seneca Cameron site. Both were built in similar environments.

The Brisbane site dates are assumed from a process of elimination. Knowledge of the site is fairly recent, and a chronological gap between the Adams and Johnston and Dutch

Hollow site has been recognized for years (Sempowski and Saunders 2001). The discovery of the Brisbane site has led most to believe that it is the missing site in the sequence.

Cameron, 1019 (AD 1595-1610; Eastern Seneca)

The Cameron village was built on a north/south-oriented hill just to the west of

Spring Brook. The site is at an elevation of 960 feet and is protected by a steep slope on the eastern side. The slopes on the north and western side are more gradual but still significant.

The southern end is fairly flat and open. The site appears to have undergone a contraction during its occupation. The southern end of the site shows evidence, in both artifact density and the location of postmolds, of palisade line movement. This could obviously indicate an

343 expansion or contraction of the site. Based on the fact that cemeteries intrude into this area

of the village, Wray et al (1991) suggest that this is evidence of a contraction. This leaves us

with two village areas, 19,263 m2 and 29,745 m2, based on the distribution of surface

artifacts, excavated palisade lines, topography, and the location of cemeteries.

The location of the Cameron site has been known since the 1800’s, but the earlier occupation (the one of interest here) has only been known since the 1930’s (Wray et al

1991). Several surveys and excavations have taken place since then with most focusing on the cemeteries and burials contained within. However, unlike most of the Seneca sites, the

Cameron site has seen a considerable amount of investigation into the settlement features of the site. From 1966 to 1988, several excavations were carried out by both the Rochester

Museum and Science Center and the Lewis Henry Morgan Chapter of NYSAA (Wray et al

1991). The sum of this work was the location of a double and triple palisade line along a

large portion of the east side of the site as well as a east/west-oriented palisade line that bisects the site and likely indicates the episode of contraction or expansion. The eastern palisade contained three rows north of the bisecting line and two below it. Although it has not been suggested before, the addition of another row of palisade could indicate an increased need for defense. If the contraction did occur as Wray et al (1991) suggest, it may not have been a decrease in population but simply a contraction of the site for defensive purposes. The larger area is 29,745 m2, which would house around 1500 at 20 m2 per person.

The smaller area is 19,263 m2, which would house around 1600 people at 12 m2 per person.

The population may have stayed constant, but the need for increased defense caused a contraction of village area. This is the theory following in this research. The succeeding

Factory Hollow site shows evidence for a population of over 1700 individuals (see below).

344 The simplest explanation at this time is for a stable to slight growth in the Cameron site’s

population over it’s occupation from around 1500 to the 1700 that eventually moves to the

Factory Hollow site. More data on the population sizes of contemporaneous sites is needed to determine whether there was an out-migration from the Cameron, a loss of life, or simply a contraction in area.

Artifacts found at the site include antler combs, antler figurines, antler flakers, an antler projectile point, bone awls, bone beads, bear claws, bone fish hooks, animal jaws, bone needles, a bone projectile point, brass awls, brass decorative items, brass beads, brass kettle

scraps, brass projectile points, Native ceramics, chert bifaces, chert drills, possible gun flints,

chert projectile points, chert scrapers, jasper flakes, decorative fossils, glass beads, iron

knives and tools, Native ceramic pipes, stone pipes, hammerstones, groundstone tools, stone beads, whetstones, shell beads and ornaments, and possible wooden utensils (Wray et al

1991:215-371). Subsistence remains found at the site include bones from deer, turkey, turtle, duck, passenger pigeon, and fish, a hickory nut, an acorn, and seeds from raspberries, strawberries squash, maize, and Canada plum (Wray et al 1991:240-241, 315, 339-341).

The occupation dates for the Cameron site are based on the glass bead types found there. Similar to the Tram site, the blue/white complex characteristic of the first decade of the seventeenth century is found at the site. However, they occur in a higher frequency at the

Cameron site. This suggests that the site was occupied when these beads were being traded in

the early seventeenth century (Wray et al 1991). Where the Tram site showed several

similarities in artifact types to earlier sites, the Cameron site has many differences from

earlier sites and both mortuary and artifactual similarities to later sites like Dutch Hollow and

Factory Hollow (Wray et al 1991; Sempowski and Saunders 2001).

345

Dutch Hollow, 1006 (AD 1605-1620; Western Seneca)

The Dutch Hollow village was built on a low rise of land bordering on the Little

Conesus Creek. There are several springs adjacent to the site in addition to the creek. There

are also several higher hills in the vicinity that would have provided easily defended

locations, but the village was build at the lower elevation near the stream. The soil around

the site is classified at Palmyra fine sandy loam. This is a good agricultural soil (Sempowski

and Saunders 2001). The site covers an area of 43,760 m2, and area large enough to house

2188 people with 20 m2 per person. The area of the site was defined by the distribution of

surface artifacts and the location of cemeteries. The lower density of occupation is applied to

the Dutch Hollow site because a higher density would place the population of the site over

2500, which is unlikely given our current knowledge on shifting agriculturalists.

The location of the Dutch Hollow site has been known since the late 19th century.

Harrison Follett noted that several surface surveys and excavations had been carried out at the site prior to 1914. However, there are no notes or other documentation from this work

(Sempowski and Saunders 2001). From this date until 1952 several excavations took place in search of burials at the site. George Pepper tested refuse areas in 1914, but aside from this work little has been done with occupational debris or settlement features (Sempowski and

Saunders 2001). Artifacts found at the site include antler awls, antler effigy combs, antler figurines, antler flaking tools, antler handles, an antler harpoon, antler maskettes, an antler projectile point, bone awls, bone beads, bone fishhooks, bone harpoon, cut animal maxillae and mandiles, an eagle beak, bone needles, raccoon penis bones, turtle shell rattles, brass awls, brass decorative items, brass beads, brass bells, an intact brass kettle, several brass and

346 copper kettle fragments, brass projectile points, brass pipe liners, Native ceramics, chert

bifaces and projectile points, chert drills, gunflints, pre-Iroquoian chert projectile points,

chert scrapers, chert cores and flakes, glass beads, iron awls and punches, iron axes, an iron

buckle, iron knives, iron points, ivory combs, lead musket balls and scrap lead, leather,

cordage, Native ceramic pipes, steatite pipes, wood pipes, shell beads, stone beads, stone

celts, stone maskettes and figurines, stone mullers, whetstones, stone decorative items,

pestles, netsinkers, animal teeth, wooden handles, and a wooden comb (Sempowski and

Saunders 2001:57-296). Subsistence items found at the site include bones from deer, bear, unidentified large and small mammals, dog, squirrel, rabbit, duck, turkey, and fish. Plant remains include raspberry seeds, maize, cherry and plum pits, common beans, and nutshells

(Sempowski and Saunders 2001:190-191, 260-261).

The occupation dates for the Dutch Hollow site are based on osteological, mortuary, and artifactual evidence. The measurement of discrete biological traits on skeletal samples from the site revealed considerable similarity to the Adams site, which is believe to have been occupied AD 1575-1590 (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:713). Mortuary patterns at

Seneca settlements suggest that over time the percentage of graves with grave goods

increased, the percentage of graves with European goods increased, and the percentage of

graves facing west versus east increased (Sempowski and Saunders 2001). For all three

categories, the Dutch Hollow site had higher percentages than those found at the Tram (AD

1580-1595) and Cameron (AD 1595-1610) sites. The Dutch Hollow and Factory Hollow

percentages in all three categories are very similar (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:714-5).

Glass bead assemblages for the Dutch Hollow, Fugle, and Factory Hollow sites are

overwhelmingly similar, indicating that the three sites were occupied at very similar times

347 (Sempowski and Saunders 2001). The presence of monochrome beads on the site indicates

the arrival of Dutch trade items at Seneca sites. The Dutch trade did not begin in earnest until

1609 (Sempowski and Saunders 2001). In addition to the beads, several artifacts distinctive

to the Dutch trade make their first appearances at this site. This suggests dates encompassing

the second decade of the seventeenth century (Sempowski and Saunders 2001). The slightly earlier establishment date of 1605 is based on the similarity of bead styles with the earlier

Cameron site. Occupation almost certainly ended very early in the 1620’s, as the beads at the

Dutch Hollow site look nothing like those found at Fort Orange, which was established at the

Dutch trading post in 1624 (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:722).

Fugle (AD 1605-1620; Western Seneca)

The Fugle village was built on a plateau adjacent to Conesus Creek. Slopes on three

sides protect the site while on the western side the land rises about 50 feet to the summit of the hill. This would have protected the site from winds and weather. The site lies at an elevation of 960 feet and is surrounded by Ontario Loam soil, which is suitable for a number of crops (Sempowski and Saunders 2001). The village area covers 11,168 m2, an area large enough to house 931 people at 12 m2 per person. The higher density ratio is used because the

site was occupied during the early seventeenth century. The Fugle site is believed to be a

satellite of the larger Dutch Hollow site, which was occupied at the same time.

The location of the site has been known since the late nineteenth century. The first

recorded excavations were done at one of the burial loci by Robert Hill in the 1940’s. In

1978, Charles Wray and Donald Cameron located more burials and excavated two of them.

A number of surface collections have taken place since the discovery of the archaeological

348 remains (Sempowski and Saunders 2001). Artifacts found at the site include antler combs,

antler dice, bone awls, bone beads, bone needles, turtle shell rattles, brass awls, brass

decorative items, brass kettle fragments, brass projectile points, Native ceramics, chert

bifaces, chert projectile points, chert drills, chert scrapers, glass beads, iron awls, iron axe

blades, iron dagger crossguards, iron knives, iron projectile points, an iron spike, an iron

sword blade, cordage, Native ceramic pipes, brass pipe, shell beads, stone pendants,

hammerstones, abrading stones, and drilled bear, wolf, and elk teeth (Sempowski and

Saunders 2001:591-665). Subsistence remains found at the site include plum pits, a

strawberry seed, squash seeds, and a sunflower seed (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:652-

653).

The occupation dates at the Fugle site are identical to those at the Dutch Hollow site

because of similar evidence. The glass bead assemblages are very similar, as are the presence

and abundance of trade items (Sempowski and Saunders 2001). For these reasons, the Fugle

site was assigned the same dates as the Dutch Hollow site.

Factory Hollow (AD 1610-1625; Eastern Seneca)

The Factory Hollow village was built on a narrow ridge bordering on the east side of

Honeoye Creek. The site is well protected by steep slopes on all sides except the south.

Even here, though, there is only a narrow bridge of land that makes the site easily accessible

making it. This is one of the last Seneca sites located on a defensible hilltop. After this

occupation, most villages were built at lower elevations (Sempowski and Saunders 2001).

The soils under and around the site are classified as Schoharie silty clay loam, which is not a

productive soil for farming. The site covers an area of 20,545 m2, an area large enough to

349 house 1712 people at 12 m2 per person. The higher density ratio was used because the site was occupied during the more turbulent times of the early seventeenth century.

Sempowski and Saunders offer the suggestion that the site may have connections to

Cayuga culture. The site is one of a handful in the Seneca region located on a defensible ridge top, as Cayuga sites are at this time, and the pottery shows evidence of Cayuga styles

(Niemczycki 1984).

The location of the site has been known since at least the late nineteenth century, and it may have been known to Lewis Henry Morgan in the middle of that century. Arthur

Parker and Harrison Follett wrote extensively about the site in 1919. Since the discovery of the archaeological remains, numerous people have surface collected and excavated at the site.

Two separate settlement archaeology investigations were carried out in 1950 and 1956

(Sempowski and Saunders 2001). The burial sites have been the focus of extensive excavations. Artifacts found at the site include an antler awl, antler beads, antler combs, antler dice, antler figurines, antler tools, antler projectile points, bone awls, bone beads, bone fish hooks, bone harpoons, bone needles, bone pendants, bone projectile point, human skull rattles, a turtle shell rattle, bone tools, brass awls, brass beads, brass decorative items, brass

kettles and fragments, brass projectile points, Native ceramics, ceramic discs, balls, beads,

chert projectile points, chert bifaces, chert drills, chert scrapers, chert flakes and cores, fossil

pendants, glass beads, iron awls, iron axes, an iron buckle, an iron mouth harp, iron nails and

spikes, iron kettle fragments, iron knives, iron projectile points, iron sword blades, an iron

saw fragment, lead musket balls, animal hide, cordage, ceramic pipes, stone pipes, a wood

pipe, kaolin clay pipes, shell beads and pendants, a stone maskette, stone discs, a stone

effigy, stone mullers, stone pendants, whetstones, netsinkers, hammerstones, drilled animal

350 teeth a wooden comb, and wooden ladles (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:333-569).

Subsistence remains found at the site include bones from beaver, elk, mouse, squirrel, wolf,

chipmunk, fox, deer, bear, dog, turkey, loon, pigeon, hawk, grouse, eagle, turtle, and fish

scales and bones (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:463). Plant remains include raspberry,

strawberry, squash, bean, plum, cherry, wild plum, maize, and nuts (Sempowski and

Saunders 2001:534).

The occupation dates for the Factory Hollow site are based on the artifact assemblage

found there. The presence of monochrome beads indicates that the site was occupied during

the beginning of trade with the Dutch. As mentioned for the Dutch Hollow site, this indicates that the site was occupied during AD 1610-20. The Factory Hollow site was given slightly

later occupation dates than those for Dutch Hollow because of lower percentages of earlier

glass trade beads. It appears that beads from Dutch trade dominate Factory Hollow. Again,

the assemblage is very different from that found at Fort Orange, so occupation at the site

almost certainly ended by AD 1624-5 (Sempowski and Saunders 2001:721-2).

Lima (AD 1620-1640; Western Seneca)

The Lima village was built on a low hill in the middle of what is now the village of

Lima. Currently, land falls of gradually on all sides except to the north, where a stream borders the site. The course of the stream and the topography around the site has been changed in recent times during road construction, so the exact appearance of the area during the sixteenth and seventeenth century is unknown. The stream would have been a water supply, but it is difficult to assess how far it would have been from the site. The site currently sits under roads and modern houses in the village of Lima. Very little is known about the

351 settlement patterns at the site. Road and house construction occurred long ago before any recorded archaeology was conducted. Based on the topography and where burial loci were located during construction, the area of the site is around 8400 m2. This is an area large

enough to house 700 people at a density of 12 m2 per person. It must be stressed that the area

reported here is a rough estimate. The higher density ratio was used because the site was

occupied during the more politically unstable times of the early seventeenth century. While

steep slopes only bound the site on one side, it is likely that sloping land in the past would

have restricted the building area.

The Lima village was occupied contemporaneously with the Bosley Mills site. The

Lima site is considerably larger and likely represents the main village of this period. The

Warren and Cornish villages were the Eastern Seneca counterparts to these two villages.

There are some indications that Jesuit missionaries visited the Lima village (RMSC).

The location of the site has been known since at least 1966, and likely has been

known for much longer. In that year, road and sewer line construction revealed the presence

of a cemetery (RMSC site files). Numerous graves were found that are believed to be

associated with the Lima village site. Artifacts recovered during this construction included

worked antler, worked shell, chert artifacts, stone artifacts, Native copper, wood, clay and

stone pipe fragments, an iron spear point, a copper pendant, a silver gorget, a Spanish coin, a

bronze bell, and Native ceramics (RMSC site files).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the presence of Round Blue Beads at

the site (Sempowski 2007). These beads date from 1635 to 1645.

352 Bosley Mills, 1800 (AD 1620-1640; Western Seneca)

The Bosley Mills village was built on a small peninsula of land with significant slopes on all surrounding sides. The only access point to the site is a narrow strip of land on the eastern side making the site very well protected by its natural surroundings. The western side of the site is bordered by Conesus Creek, and a small tributary stream runs along the southeastern border of the site. The site lies at an elevation of 840 feet while the area surrounding the site is at 800 feet. The site itself is built on Schoharie Silty Clay Loam, and the surrounding soils are classified as an eroded version of the same soil type (Vandrei 1986).

The site covers an area of 7284 m2 (Vandrei 1986:77), an area large enough to house 607

people at a ratio of 12 m2 per person. The higher density ratio was used because the site was

occupied during the more turbulent times of the early seventeenth century. Bosley Mills is

considered to be a satellite village of the larger Lima village.

The Bosley Mills village was likely a satellite village of the much-larger Lima

village. The Warren and Cornish sites represent the contemporaneous Eastern Seneca villages.

As a result of the heavy farming in the area, the location of the site has been known since the late eighteenth century. There was reportedly a two to three foot high earthen embankment that survived into the earliest decades of the nineteenth century (Vandrei 1986).

The only recorded excavation of the site occurred at one of the burial loci and was conducted by J. C. Harrington of the Peabody Museum at Harvard University sometime in the early twentieth century (Vandrei 1986). In 1983 and 1984, Charles Vandrei and others dug 142 shovel test pits and 122 square meters of one by two and two by two excavation units

(Vandrei 1986: 77). Between these excavations, Charles Wray surface collected the site.

353 The site was threatened by highway construction in 1978, but was spared after a design

change (Vandrei 1986). Vandrei’s excavations uncovered middens and a pattern of

postmolds, pits, and hearths that were interpreted as two overlapping longhouses (Vandrei

1986). Artifacts found at the site include glass beads, stone tools, Native ceramics, bone, and

shell (Vandrei 1986:77).

The occupation dates for the Bosley Mills site is based on the glass trade beads found

there. The beads indicate a date in the second and third decades of the 1600’s (Vandrei

1986:77). The presence of other European items, such as iron artifacts and Dutch ceramics,

also support these dates (Vandrei 1986:77-8).

Warren (AD 1625-1645; Eastern Seneca)

The Warren village was built in a low hollow along the eastern edge of Honeoye

Creek. The site lies at an elevation of 720 feet and is surrounded on three sides by rising

slopes. There is a short decline to the creek, but this would not have provided much natural

defense. Overall, the site would have been protected from the weather, but there would have

been little protection at all from outside attacks. The land appears to be very fertile and is

currently under cultivation by local farmers. The site covers a roughly rectangular area of

27,170 m2, an area large enough to hold 2264 people at a density of 12 m2 per person. The

higher density ratio was used because the site was occupied during the more politically

unstable times of the early seventeenth century. The Warren village was likely the larger of two villages occupied at this time. The Cornish site is the remains of the smaller satellite village.

354 The date of discovery of the site by archaeologists is unknown, but several excavations of the burial plots have taken place over the years (RMSC). Artifacts found at the site include pottery, pipe fragments, glass beads, brass kettle fragments, seed beads, wooden ladle handle, leather thong, brass thimble fragment, iron knife blade, iron file, iron sword, glass bottle top, whetstone, brass hawkbells, brass projectile point, antler comb, grinding stones, iron awls, brass thimble, brass decorative items, chert scraper, chert stemmed points, chert triangular points, perforated elk tooth, bone tools, lead musket balls, wooden bird effigy, shell beads, perforated bear and dog teeth, antler flaking tool, gun flints, turtle shell rattle, brass beads, pewter spoon, beaver tooth, wooden bowl fragment, iron axes,

“lucky” stones, and brass-covered wooden buttons. Subsistence remains found at the site include plumb pits, gourd fragments, and seeds (RMSC).

The occupation dates derive from the European trade bead assemblage found at the site. After the establishment of Fort Orange in present-day Albany in 1624, the beads manufactured and traded by the Dutch change dramatically. This change is marked by a deliberate attempt to produce less expensive goods, including beads (Wray et al 1991:410).

The beads found at the Warren site reflect this change, as they are much more simple in form and decoration. Therefore the site was almost certainly occupied during the initial years after the establishment of Fort Orange (Wray et al 1991).

Cornish (AD 1625-1645; Eastern Seneca)

The Cornish village was build on a ridge of land bordered by a stream on the eastern side and a stream on the western side. The streams converge at the southern end in marshland. The ridge of land lies around 890 feet of elevation and is irregularly shaped and

355 relatively narrow. The slopes on the eastern and western edges of the ridge are steep and around 10 to 15 feet higher than the surrounding area. This area provides good natural protection from outside attacks. The site covers an area of 5,666 m2, an area large enough to

house 472 individuals with a density of 12 m2 per person. The higher density ratio was used

because the site was occupied during the more politically unstable times of the early

seventeenth century. Based on dating from artifact assemblages, this site was likely a satellite

village to the larger Warren site. However, it resides in a very different physiographic setting

from its companion village.

The current vegetation at and around the site includes basswood, white oak, sumac,

hawthorne, grape, grey dogwood, red osier dogwood, cherry, American elm, willow,

American beech, hickory, red maple, Eastern white pine. Based on floral analysis, oak,

hickory, and basswood were present at the time of occupation (RMSC).

The location of the site has been known for at least several decades. Burials were dug

in 1938 and 1939 (Hayes 1967a:94). The RMSC conducted excavations at the site in 1964

and 1965 and dug the hillside middens (RMSC). During these excavations, postmolds

believed to be remains of two palisade lines were uncovered 48 feet apart along the southern edge of the site (Hayes 1967a:91). They also looked for palisade on the northern edge, but

were unsuccessful (Hayes 1967a). A longhouse measuring approximately 65 feet by 20.5 feet was also uncovered (Hayes 1967a:92). Four hearths were uncovered in this structure

(Hayes 1967a:93). This information provides an opportunity to determine the number of people living in this particular dwelling, around 40 individuals, but does little to help estimate the overall population at the site because it is the only structure that was uncovered.

Artifacts found at the site include glass beads, bone tools, bone awl, bone needle, pottery,

356 bone fishhook, chert projectile points, chert drill, chert scrapers, chert knives, scrap brass,

iron knife, iron axe fragments, brass decorative items, iron chisel, iron awl, clay pipe

fragments, lead musket balls, brass pipe liner, perforated canine teeth, clay animal head,

brass kettle fragments, chert core, chert flakes, and an antler flaker (RMSC). Faunal remains

found at the site include beaver, muskrat, woodchuck, gray squirrel, red squirrel, northern

flying squirrel, snowshoe hare, rabbit, dog or wolf, raccoon, skunk, fisher, white-tailed deer, turkey, grouse, redtailed hawk, eagle, duck, painted turtle, snapping turtle, box turtle, rattlesnake, water snake, black snake, frog, toad, eel, bullhead, white sucker, and channel cat

(RMSC).

Similar to the Warren site, the occupation dates for the Cornish site are based on the glass trade beads found there. The beads are of the more simple variety produced by the

Dutch after 1624. Therefore, occupation of the site likely began shortly after this change

(Wray et al 1991).

Powerhouse (AD 1640-1655; Western Seneca)

The Powerhouse village was built on a low terrace near several streams and marshes.

The site is not well protected by the topography, but the wet areas and streams may have

provided some defensive qualities. Water sources were abundant at the site. The site covers

an area of 16,970 m2, an area that would have housed 1399 individuals with a ratio of 12 m2

per person. This measurement was taken with a GPS unit and was based on the results of

previous excavations at the site. The higher density ratio was used because the site was

occupied during the seventeenth century when most evidence indicates that Haudenosaunee

villages were taking defensive measures when building settlements. One of those measures

357 was to construct compact villages that are easier to defend. The Menzis site was likely a

smaller companion to the Powerhouse village. The Steele site was likely occupied at the

same time in the eastern Seneca territory.

The location of the site has been known for at least several decades. Charles Wray

and Harry Schoff excavated 180 burials at the site in the early 1970’s. The RMSC later

excavated more burials at the site and conducted a field school in 1991 and again in 1992

(RMSC site files). Very little work at the site has been done outside of this focus on the

cemeteries associated with the village. As a result, very little is known about the settlement

pattern at the site. The cemetery work and field school did delineate the most likely

boundary of the village area based on artifact concentrations and the locations of the

cemeteries. Artifacts found at the site include glass beads, a pewter pipe, bone tools, a

folding knife, a flintlock cap, iron chisels, a musket ball, a brigger guard, pipe stem

fragments, metal fragments (one with writing), an iron gunbarrel, an iron celt, iron buckles,

brass kettle fragments, shell beads, wooden ladles, pot sherds, iron Jews harps, iron fishhook, iron awl, iron screwdriver, iron ring, nails, gun parts, chert projectile points, pipe fragments,

brass bangles, iron fork, chert scrapers, catlinite beads, a brass hawk bell, and a brass thimble

(RMSC site files).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the percentages of glass beads found at the site. Tubular beads were found at the site, and these particular beads date from 1645 to

1657. This site also yields the first evidence of guns at Western Seneca sites. Guns were not

traded to the Haudenosaunee until after 1640.

358 Menzis (AD 1640-1655; Western Seneca)

The Menzis village was built on a small portion of a large plateau of land and just

north of a small tributary stream. The land sloping down to the stream would have provided

some natural protection. However, the other three sides of the site are bordered by open, flat

areas that would not have provided much protection from outside attacks. The site is believed

to be a small satellite village of the Powerhouse village. Very little is known about the settlement patterns at the site, though, and as a result a determination of site size is not possible at this time.

There are no records of formal archaeological research having been done at the site.

There is a record at the RMSC of artifacts recovered from the site. They include a kaolin pipe stem, bear’s tooth, iron spike, iron pot hook, iron nail rod, iron nail, glass beads, shell pendants, “lucky” stone, pot sherds, flint scraper, cut brass scrap, brass kettle patch, Kaolin pipe bowl, and an iron bolt (RMSC).

Steele (AD 1645-1660; Eastern Seneca)

The Steele village was built on a broad, round hill. The site is bordered to the north

by a steep, but low declivity that terminates in a stream. RMSC estimates, based on previous

work, estimated the size to be between seven and nine acres. Based on GPS mapping, the

site is very large, covering an area of 54, 750 m2. This was the only Western Seneca village

at this time, so while it is large, the size of the site is not unprecedented. The site would have

been able to accommodate 2738 people with a ratio of 20 m2 per person. All evidence from

Mohawk sites shows a movement toward more spacious sites in the mid to late seventeenth

century. Even so, the Steele village is one of the largest of any Haudenosaunee village

359 occupied during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There is an explanation for the large

size. Sometime between 1649 and 1651 (dates vary), an entire Huron village numbering

between 500 and 1000 people moved into the Seneca area (JR LII:52-55; Trigger 1976:790,

826; Warrick 2007:238). In fact, the data from this study suggests a population increase of

roughly 900 people around 1650. This is very near to the time the Steele, Powerhouse, and

Menzis sites were being built. We know nothing about the internal configuration of these

sites, but the Powerhouse and Menzis sites are much smaller. In addition, it appears that the

Seneca were experiencing population loss just prior to the occupation of these three sites.

However, this is a significant increase in the total Seneca population from 1640 to 1660. It is said that the Hurons moved as a single community called Ganougare. However, it is unknown if the expatriates built an entire village of their own or lived in an existing Seneca village. If the latter is true, the Steele site, with its large size, is a good potential location for this event. If the former is true, the Hurons may have built a village in very close proximity to the Seneca and the Steele site may actually be two sites in close proximity to one another.

Either case would account for the extraordinary size of the site. The other possibility is that the relatively unknown Menzis site may be the Huron village of Ganougare. The interesting

part is that the Eastern Seneca population does not rise at all from the previous Warren and

Cornish sites to the Steele site. The overall Seneca population increase comes from the

Western Seneca Powerhouse and Menzis sites. More work is needed to clear up the history

and settlement patterns at the Steele site.

The location of the Steele site has been known for several decades. A significant

amount of excavation has taken place at the site, but as with most Seneca sites the focus was the burial locations. Several professional and amateur archaeologists including Harrison

360 Follette, Arthur Parker, Harold Schoff, and Fred Hamlin visited and worked at the site

(RMSC site files). Construction of two different roads bisected the northern and eastern sides

of the site somewhere near the estimated boundary. Charles Wray defined the boundary of the site based on surface artifact scatter and the location of cemetery plots. Little settlement work has been conducted at the site, so the measurement reported here is best regarded as a maximum village size. Artifacts found at the site include pottery, pipe fragments, glass beads, gun flints, brass projectile points, brass ornaments, scrap brass, glass buttons, Jesuit rings, brass beads, iron axes, gun parts, shell beads, red slate beads, seed beads, bear and dog tooth pendants, animal bone fragments, wooden ladle, brass and iron awls, brass beads, iron key, lead musket balls, brass kettle fragments, wooden bowl fragment, iron nails, brass bangle, corn cobs, melon seeds, turtle shell, chert projectile points, pewter spoon fragments,

European ceramics, sunflower seeds, brass hawkbell fragments, iron projectile point, catlinite beads, pig tooth, brass wire fishhook, and basketry (RMSC site files).

The occupation dates for the Steele site are based on the artifacts found there. This site yields some of the earliest gun parts. Guns were not traded to the Haudenosaunee until the early AD 1640’s. In addition, tubular glass trade beads, which date from AD 1645 to AD

1657, appear at the site. These two types of artifacts provide the best chronological data.

Gandachioragou (Dann; AD 1655-1675; Western Seneca)

This site is commonly referred to as the Dann site in archaeological reports. However,

I use the name mentioned in historical documents in this research in order to avoid confusion

when discussing archaeological and ethnohistoric data. Several other Seneca sites are

361 addressed in a similar manner, and both the historic and archaeological names are listed for

these sites as well.

The Gandachioragou village site was built on a low hill bordering on Spring Brook.

The site lies at 660 feet of elevation on the eastern side of the stream and the land rises gently

to the east. There is little natural protection from either the elements or other people at this

site. The slope on the western edge of the site along Spring Brook is steep but not high.

Previous estimates placed the site at around 11 acres without cemeteries. Based on maps of

surface artifact concentrations, the site covers an area of 46,000 m2. This is an area large enough to house 2300 individuals with a ratio of 20 m2 per person. The site files in the

Rochester Museum and Science Center (RMSC) indicate that past excavators estimated that

there were 20-25 houses at the site and a population of around 1000 individuals (RMSC).

There are no specifics about the size of longhouses in this estimate, but it is much lower than

the area-based estimate. Despite this evidence, the best information on population size comes

from Jesuit accounts.

There are a number of historical accounts that may refer to the Gandachioragou site.

In 1655, Jesuit Joseph Chaumonot wrote, “The country of the Sonnontouans… contains two

very large towns and a number of lesser villages” (de Casson and De Brehant de Galinee

1903:25). The current dating of the Gandachioragou site has its first year of occupation in

1655. This means that this account is likely referring to the Gandachioragou site and its

Eastern Seneca counterpart, the Steele site. However, there are no smaller sites that have

been identified as being occupied during this time period or the period just prior in which the

Powerhouse and Menzis sites were occupied. The most likely scenario is that there are

misdated or unknown small satellite villages from this time period. In 1669, Rene De Brehant

362 de Galinee, who traveled with LaSalle, wrote, “the Seneca nation is the most numerous of the

all the Iroquois. It is composed of four villages, two of which contain one hundred (and

fifty) cabins each, and the other two about thirty cabins…” (Coyne1903:20-39). This is

another indicator that there may be a missing satellite village for the Gandachioragou site. In

1669, the Eastern Seneca were living in the Marsh and Wheeler Station sites. Those two and

the Gandachioragou site account for three of the four identified by De Brehant de Galinee. It

is likely that there is a satellite village that should accompany the Gandachioragou site in the

Western Seneca sequence. The house count also provides an opportunity for a population estimate. In 1677, Greenhalgh notes that the Seneca have around 1000 warriors (Greenhalgh

1850-1851:12). Assuming that the population was similar 10 years earlier (during the occupation of the Gandachioragou site), this number provides a total Seneca population of around 4000. In most pre-industrial societies, a total population-to-warrior count of 4-to-1 is common. This population of 4000 divided by the total number of Seneca cabins results in approximately 12.35 people per longhouse. Gandachioragou contained 150 houses. This results in a population of 1852 individuals. This is the best evidence at this time since the area estimates can only be made based on the distribution of surface artifacts.

The location of the site has been known since the earliest settlers in the area. Ephram

Squier visited the site in 1849 and the earliest recorded excavations took place in 1898, by the owner of the site (RMSC). Most work at the site has involved surface collections and excavations of the burial loci. Several hundred burials have been excavated at the site. Very little work has been done on the settlement patterns at the site. However, Charles Wray and

Donald Cameron worked at the site and identified a portion of the palisade along the western boundary (RMSC). The dating of the site is considered to be highly accurate because of

363 dated coins and medallions found at the site (RMSC). Artifacts found at the site include clay pipe fragments, glass beads, iron axes, brass kettle fragments, brass scraps, iron hoe, stone disc, brass hawk bells, lead pipe fragments, shell gorget, copper bangles, lead effigy pipe, antler spoon, chert projectile points, scrapers, blanks, and gunflints, hammerstone and anvil, gun parts, iron knives, pottery, shell beads, Jesuit rings, brass projectile points, iron scissors, wooden ladle, coins, medallions, and brass decorative items (RMSC).

The occupation dates for the sites come from the descriptions by Chaumonot and de

Galinee. These sources suggest an occupation time lasting from 1655 to at least the late

1660’s.

La Conception (AD 1655-1675)

This village is known only from historical texts and the name is only known from the

French Jesuit mission that was established there. Several accounts from 1669 to 1674 indicate that the Seneca were living in four villages (Coyne1903:20-39; JR LIV:78-123,

LV:74-93, LVI:58-69, LVII:190-195, LVIII:228-229,232-233, 236-237, 242-243). However, only three village sites have been identified archaeologically. The explanation for this is either a misdated site or an archaeologically unidentified site. The argument here is the latter.

Galinee describes two small villages that have 30 cabins (Coyne1903:20-39). Following the assumption that this unidentified village is one of those two small villages, the population of the site would have been 370. This estimate is based on the aforementioned ratio of 12.35 persons per house based on Greenhalgh’s warrior and house count at Seneca villages two years after the occupation at La Conception.

364 This village is not included in the settlement ecology research because of the lack of

locational information.

The occupation dates for this site are based on the above historical references. These

indicate that the village was occupied at least during the late 1660’s and the first half of the

1670’s.

Gandagaro (Marsh; AD 1660-1675; Eastern Seneca)

The Marsh village was built on a low, flat area surrounded by wetlands. There is very

little natural protection at the site except on the western edge where the land drops off to a

small tributary stream and eventually Mud Creek. The area is fertile farmland now, and the

wetlands, stream, and creek would have provided water and other plant and animal resources.

Very little is known about the settlement patterns at the site and the land is too open and flat to define any boundary based on topography. As a result, there is no way to accurately estimate site size at this time.

There are several historical notations that refer to the village represented at the

Gandagaro site. In 1669 Galinée and LaSalle visited the Seneca and noted that they had four villages: two large villages of 150 cabins and two small villages of about 30 cabins (Coyne

1903:20-39). They also noted that a palisade 12 or 13 feet high surrounded the village in the

shape of a square (Coyne 1903:20-39). This is also the likely location of the mission of St.

Jacques. The associated village is described as being twice as large as the St. Michel village

(JR LVII:190-195). Based on identical calculations already mentioned for the Dann site, the

population of St. Jacques (the Gandagaro site) was around 1852 people. Again, this is the

best evidence and estimate at this time.

365 The burial plots at the site were excavated in several episodes by Houghton, Schoff,

and Hoffman beginning in 1911 (RMSC). Artifacts recovered from this work include a

whetstone, a gun flint, a fishhook, glass beads, brass kettles, cloth, a wooden bowl, iron and

brass bracelets, an iron awl, an iron knife, a shell pendant, pipe fragments, a gourd rattle, iron

tomohawk, iron adzes, iron spoon, iron sword blade, brass bells, brass danglers, a glass

bottle, brass needles, musket balls, gun parts, and a wooden ladle (RMSC). Subsistence items

recovered include deer and bear bones, box turtle bones, and berry seeds (RMSC).

The occupation dates for the site are based on the historic documentation from Jesuit

missionaries. This site has been identified as Gandagaro, which was the site of the St.

Jacques mission. This means the site was occupied during the mid- to late 1660’s. In

addition, it is known that the Ganondagan site was the Eastern Seneca village visited by

Greenhalgh in 1677. Thus, the Gandagaro site was abandoned by the mid-1670’s at the latest.

Wheeler Station (AD 1660-1675; Eastern Seneca)

The Wheeler Station village was built on a low hill bordering on Mud Creek about a

mile south of the Marsh site. This site is the likely companion to the Marsh site. The creek is

located just west of the site and a significant slope runs from the edge of the site to the water.

This would have provided natural protection. However, the other three sides are fairly

accessible with only a slight grade up to the site area. Very little is known about the settlement patterns at the site, so a measurement of the site area is not possible at this time.

In 1668 Father Fremin established the mission of St. Michel among a village of

Huron, Neutral, and Onnontioga (Erie) refugees who moved to Seneca territory after their defeat in 1649 (JR LII:52-55, LIV:78-83, Parker 1926:26). When Fremin arrived the Senecas

366 were experiencing an epidemic from which many people died (JR LIV:78). The village was

called Gandougarae, the name apparently brought by the Huron refugees in 1651. In 1669

Galinée and LaSalle visited the Seneca and noted that they had four villages: two large

villages of 150 cabins and two small villages of about 30 cabins (Coyne 1903:20-39).

Wheeler Station is likely one of the small villages with 30 cabins.

In 1671, Father Julien Garnier writes that the village of St. Michel burned during the

spring of 1670. Very little archaeology has been done at the site, so there have been no archaeological finds to confirm or deny this event at this site. The only evidence of burning in the area is at the Bunce site, which is now considered to be only a burial site (Sempowski

2007, personal communication).

When Greenhalgh visits Seneca territory, he notes that the satellite to the Ganondagan site is four miles to the south. This distance is too far to refer to the Cherry Street or Beal sites, which are commonly assigned to the Ganondagan satellite village. It may be that the

Wheeler Station village was still occupied at the time of Greenhalgh’s visit. If this is the case,

Greenhalgh also counts 30 houses. Based on Greenhalgh’s and Galinee’s information, we can calculate the population size of the Wheeler station site. Similar to calculations for the Dann and Marsh sites, 12.35 people per house multiplied by 30 houses results in 370 people. This is the best estimate at this time considering the lack of archaeological knowledge of the site.

There is no record in the RMSC of formal surveys or excavations or of any artifacts recovered from the site.

Based on Greenhalgh’s description of the location of the satellite to Ganondagan, I believe this is one of the four villages he visited in 1677. This establishes an abandonment date for the site. In addition, this is the most likely location for the mission of St. Michel,

367 which was established in 1668. The assumption here is that the mission was built among the existing village of Huron and other refugees.

Totiakton (AD 1675-1687; Western Seneca)

The Totiakton site is located on a large plateau in a bend of Honeoye Creek. The

Creek and associated slopes rising to the plateau form the northeastern and southeastern

boundaries of the rectangular site. The slopes are steep and would have provided excellent

natural protection on the two sides facing the creek. The rest of the site was bordered by open, flat land. The site covers an area of 61,204 m2, an area large enough to house 3060

people with a density of 20 m2 per person. This ratio was used because the site was occupied during the late seventeenth century and in an open setting.

The Totiakton village is mentioned by both Greenhalgh and Denonville (Greenhalgh

1850-51:13, O’Callahan 1855:358-369). Greenhalgh counts 1000 Seneca warriors

(Greenhalgh 1850-51:13). This indicates a population of around 4000 people. He also gives

house counts for each of the Seneca villages visited. The total number of houses is 324, and

Totiakton had 120 of those (Greenhalgh 1850-51:13). The expatriate Huron community of

Ganougare was still residing in Seneca territory at this time. The presence of an ossuary at

the Cherry Street village indicates that it was the likely site of this Huron settlement

(Sempowski 2007 pesonal communication). Greenhalgh never mentions the Huron

community by name. The assumption here is that Greenhalgh was including them in the

Seneca warrior and house counts. The total population along with the total house count

allows for a calculation of individuals per house. This is 12.35. Thus, Totiakton, with its 120

houses, would have been home to 1482 residents. This is less than half of the expected

368 number based on the size of the site. However, the boundaries of the village have not been

well-defined, so the Greenhalgh numbers are likely the more accurate at this time.

Several excavations have taken place at the site in both the village area and the

associated cemeteries. Work around the village area has also identified possible French

encampment sites and a possible alternate occupation on the northeastern slope (RMSC).

However, this is little record of artifacts or features identified or recovered from the site.

The occupation dates are based on the site being identified as the village visited by

both Greenhalgh in 1677 and destroyed by DeNonville in 1687. This sets at least a ten-year

occupation period for the settlement. Round Red and Round Black beads, which date from

1675 to 1680, are also found at the site (Sempowski 2007).

Kient-he (Kirkwood; AD 1675-1687; Western Seneca)

The Kient-he village was built just below the crest of a moderately large hill. The

village would have had natural defenses from the slopes of the hill it was built on and a

commanding view of lands to the west, north, and east. The site lies at an elevation of 750

feet. A small stream runs near the site as well. The site covers an area of 22,296 m2. It would have been large enough for 1115 people at a density of 20 m2 per person. The lesser density

is used because the site is located in an area with ample building space.

This is the likely site of the Kient-he village mentioned by Greenhalgh in 1977. At the

time, Greenhalgh noted, “Keint-he contains about 24 houses well furnished with corne”

(O’Callahan 1849:13). DeNonville and the soldiers in his expedition called it Gannounata

(O’Callahan 1855:364-368). In both cases the village is mentioned as the companion to

Totiakton (a/k/a Tiotohatton) and as being located two leagues south of the larger village.

369 Using similar calculations to those used to determine the population at Totiakton, the house

number here is multiplied by 12.35 people per house. The result is a population of 296

residents. Again, this is significantly less than the area estimate suggests, but the size is a rough estimate based on surface collections. The estimate based on Greenhalgh’s observations is the most reliable at this time.

A small number of excavations have taken place at the site. Harrison Follette mapped the site and Herman Hetzler claimed to have identified portions of the stockade that surrounded the site in a letter to Arthur Parker (RMSC). Greenhalgh specifically mentions

that none of the Seneca sites at this time were stockaded (O’Callahan 1849:13), but he likely

visited just after the construction of the new villages and palisades may have not been built at

that time. When DeNonville marches his army through Seneca territory he notes that the

Arms of England were placed on the gates to the village of Gannounata (O’Callahan

1855:364-368), believed to be the Kirkwood site. Artifacts found at the site include bone

combs, Jesuit rings, iron axe, gun parts, snuff box, pipe bowls, wooden ladle fragments, glass

beads, iron scissors, glass bottle top, iron hook, iron sword hand guard, brass awl, scrap

brass, iron chisels, musket balls, Kaolin pipe fragments, brass bell fragment, iron pot hooks,

bear jaw, turtle shell rattle, and an iron knife (RMSC).

Like Totiakton, the Kient-he site is unanimously considered to be one of the four

villages visited by Greenhalgh and destroyed by DeNonville. This sets the establishment data at 1677, at the latest, and the abandonment date at 1687.

370 Ganondagan (AD 1675-1687; Eastern Seneca)

The Ganondagan village was built on the northern end of a large plateau. Steep slopes

surround the site on all sides except to the south. The slopes would have provided some

protection from outside intrusion or attack. Several streams and springs are located within a

kilometer of the site in almost every direction. The area of the site was previously measured

as 37,349 m2, an area large enough to house 1867 people with a density of 20 m2. This density is applied because of the limited amount of flat area for building at the site. Chevalier de Baugy, who accompanied Denonville, noted that the Ganaguiara village was 800 paces in circumference (de Baugy 1930). If we assume de Baugy’s pace was between two and a half and three feet, the circumference of the site was between 2000 and 2400 feet. Assuming the site is circular, this gives it an area between 29,544 m2 and 42,616 m2, an area large enough

to house between 1478 and 2130 people with a density of 20 m2 per person. The average of

1804 is close to the area estimate.

Greenhalgh refers to the Ganondagan site as Canagora in his notes from his 1677 trip.

He notes that the village contains 150 houses (O’Callahan 1849:13). Using the same methods that were used for the Totiakton and Kirkwood sites, Ganondagan would have housed 1852 individuals. Again, this number is very close to both area estimates. The population of the village was likely around 1850 people.

Artifacts have been recovered from site since shortly after it’s abandoning in the late seventeenth century. Archaeological excavations in the early to mid-twentieth century by

Parker, Ritchie, and others focused on the cemetery plots around the site (Hayes 1965). The

site is currently a state historic park with a reconstructed longhouse and information on the

history of the area for visitors. Artifacts found at the site include clay pipe fragments,

371 European gunflints, shell ornaments, brass projectile points, pottery, bone combs, brass kettle fragments, iron knives, glass beads, wooden ladles, Jesuit rings, buttons, and medals, iron chisels, gun parts, stone celts, hammerstones, chert projectile points, anvilstones, bone awls, needles, pendants and projectile points, shell beads, brass buttons and bells, iron axes, fragments of cloth and hide, a short sword, vermilion paint cake, and bone beads (Hayes

1965).

The occupation dates for the site derive from Greenhalgh’s and DeNonville’s accounts. This is unanimously considered to be one of the villages visited by Greenhalgh in

1677 and one of villages destroyed by the French in 1687. These two historical events set a definite period of occupation for the site. Round Red and Round Black beads, which date from 1675 to 1680, are also found at the site (Sempowski 2007).

Cherry Street (AD 1680?-1687; Eastern Seneca)

The Cherry Street village was built on a low, broad hill a very short distance south of the Ganondagan village. There are streams located to the south and within a kilometer of the site, but there are no apparent, modern water sources in close proximity. The site covers an area of 24,100 m2, an area large enough to house 1205 individuals at 20 m2 per person. This ratio is used because the site lies on a broad hill with plenty of building space. The site was mapped with a GPS unit based on a map of surface artifact scatter created by Charles Wray.

This likely represents a maximum village size. Artifacts of various ages including chert flakes and European ceramics were seen on the surface during mapping.

The Cherry Street site is believed to be the remains of a Huron refugee or captive village that moved into the Seneca region after their defeat. This is based on the

372 dissimilarities between the burials at this site compared to other Seneca sites dating to the

same general time period (Houghton n.d., Hoffman n.d., Schoff 1949, Wray n.d.[a], n.d.[b]).

Greenhalgh and DeNonville both mention a companion site to the Ganondagan village

(O’Callahan 1849:11-14, O’Callahan 1855:358-369). However, Greenhalgh mentions it as

being four miles to the south. He may be referring to the Wheeler Station site. It is possible that the companion Huron village did not move at the same time as the larger Seneca community. Assuming that this village is the replacement for the burned Wheeler Station village, the population was likely very similar. Greenhalgh’s house and warrior counts suggested a population of 370 individuals at Wheeler Station. This is much lower than the area estimate of Cherry Street suggests. However, the boundary of the Cherry Street village has been defined solely by surface collecting. This often overestimates the sizes of sites. As a result, the best population figure at this time is the one based on the preceding Wheeler

Station village.

When DeNonville arrives, the Huron village is much closer. It is likely that the village moved sometime between Greenhalgh’s visit and DeNonville’s campaign ten years later. The unresolved issue is the existence of two archaeological satellite village sites,

Cherry Street and Beal, when only one is mentioned in the historical record. For the purposes

of this study, the Cherry Street and Beal sites are considered one community occupied from

1675 to 1687. See the description of the Beal site for a more in-depth discussion.

There has been surface collecting at the Cherry Street site as well as excavation of the burials associated with the site. Excavations of the cemetery showed that it was an ossuary similar to those found at Wendat sites (RMSC site files). This has led several researchers to conclude that the site represents a village for Huron refugees that settled with the Seneca

373 after their defeat in the 1660’s. This was a common practice, and the Mohawk Jackson-

Everson site and Onondaga Indian Hill site show similar evidence of refugee villages in

Haudenosaunee territory. There is no current listing of artifacts recovered at the site.

My interpretation is that the Beal and Cherry Street sites are two villages occupied by

the same community at different times during the late seventeenth century. This means that

either this site or the Beal site was the companion site to the Ganondagan site mentioned by

DeNonville in 1687. The abandonment date for this site is known because it was most likely

one of the four village destroyed by the French in the above year. Round Red and Round

Black beads, which date from 1675 to 1680, are also found at the site (Sempowski 2007).

Beal (AD 1675-1687; Eastern Seneca)

The Beal village was built on a low terrace bordered by a stream on three sides. On the southern edge of the site, the land drops steeply to one of the streams. There is also considerable spring immediately northwest of the site. The streams run dry in the summer.

Very little work has been done at the site, and as a result very little is known about the

settlement pattern there. A GPS map was created of the entire hilltop that the site is believed

to have sat upon. This resulted in an area of 19,480 m2. This is at best a maximum size

estimation and would have accommodated 974 individuals at 20 m2 per person. This ratio

was used because the area around the site has ample building space. If this is another site

occupied by the same community that built Cherry Street (see below), then the population is

likely somewhere between 975 and 1200.

Both Greenhalgh and DeNonville mention only one companion village to

Ganondagan (O’Callahan 1849:11-14, O’Callahan 1855:358-369), but both Cherry Street

374 and Beal appear to have been occupied while Ganondagan was occupied. It is possible that

one of the two sites is not a village site since no definite settlement remains have been found.

It is also possible that only one of the villages was occupied at a time. One may have burned or been abandoned and the community moved to the other. I believe this is the most likely explanation at this time. The two villages are similar in size and burial practices at both locations are similar and noticeably different from other Seneca sites dating to the same time period, so this explanation would not be out of the question. There is mention of Gannagare community of Onnontioga, Huron, and Neutral refugees in Seneca territory from 1649 on (JR

XLIV:20-21, LII:52-55, LIV:78-83), and Cherry Street and Beal may represent two of the

villages lived in by this community. The other possibility is that only one of the sites was a

village and the other is either a mortuary site or a non-settled area used by the Seneca and

their Huron neighbors.

As mentioned, very little is known about the site. Information from local residents

indicates that people have been digging burials associated with the site for several decades.

This is the only work known to have been conducted at the site. Artifacts recovered from the

burial locations include iron fragments, clay pipes, glass beads, chert projectile points, brass

rings, an iron awl, an iron knife, gun parts, bone combs, an iron spoon, pottery sherds, an iron

axe, a clay pipe, an antler chipping tool, shell fragments, potsherds, a Jew’s harp, a mirror, a

stone pestle, and a whetstone (RMSC site files). Subsistence remains found at the site

include bird bones, berry seeds, and melon seeds (RMSC site files).

My interpretation is that the Beal and Cherry Street sites are two villages occupied by

the same community at different times during the late seventeenth century. This means that

either the Beal site or the Cherry Street site was the companion site to the Ganondagan site

375 mentioned by DeNonville in 1687. The abandonment date for this site is known because it

was most likely one of the four village destroyed by the French in the above year. Round Red and Round Black beads, which date from 1675 to 1680, are also found at the site

(Sempowski 2007).

Onaghee (Snyder-McClure; AD 1688-1710; Western Seneca)

The Snyder-McClure village was built on a broad hill northeast of Cananadaigua

Lake. The site is located near a small stream and on a location without much natural

protection. Very little is known about the settlement patterns at the site, and as a result area

measurements are not possible at this time. Rough estimates put the area of occupation

between three and four acres (RMSC). However, this is not an accurate enough figure from

which to create a population estimate.

There are several mentions of the site in the historical documentation of the time

period. The site was the Onaghee (also Onagee or Onachee) village. It has been mentioned as

being a captive town for Hurons who sought refuge in Seneca territory. Similar to the

contemporaneous Kanedesaga site, Onaghee was built and occupied after the DeNonville

expedition burned Seneca villages and food stores in the late 17th century. The last mention

of the site is in 1750, when Moravian missionaries visited the site only to find it abandoned

(RMSC).

Excavations have been carried out at the site since the early twentieth century. In

1921 and 1927, burial plots were located and excavated by Dewey and Schoff, respectively.

Burials were again excavated in 1960 by Clarence Bill and from 1975 to 1976 and from 1978

to 1980 by Charles Wray (RMSC). Artifacts found at the site include Jesuit rings, medals,

376 brass crosses, Venetian beads, catlinite and shell ornaments, iron nails, kaolin trade pipes,

glass beads, antler comb, iron axe and knife, brass kettle, brass projectile points, glass bottles, iron swords, tin pails, wooden spoons, shell beads, Iroquois pottery, iron harpoon, iron scissors, iron nails, brass and pewter buttons (RMSC).

The occupation dates of the site are based on the historical references to it. This is universally accepted as the location for a portion of the Seneca population after the aforementioned destruction of the Seneca villages in 1687. The only certainty regarding the

abandonment date is the reference to it being unoccupied in 1750. Wire Wound Beads, which date from 1715 to 1750, are also found at the site (Sempowski 2007).

Kanedesaga (White Springs; AD 1690-1732; Eastern Seneca)

The Kanedesaga village was built on a large loaf of land to the east of Seneca Lake.

The slopes on the eastern and western sides of the site are not incredibly steep, but they

would have provided ample protection from outside attack. The land on the northern and

southern ends of the site slopes more gently. The site covers an area of 62,500 m2, an area large enough to house 3125 people with a density of 20 m2 per person. The lower density

was applied because of the time of occupation and the site’s location on a large, broad hill.

Not much is known about the exact dimensions of the site, so this measurement is likely a

maximum estimate and may be larger than the actual village size. More settlement work

needs to be done at the site to determine the boundaries.

The Kanedesaga site is referenced frequently in historical documents. After the

DeNonville expedition burned the Ganondagan village, the Seneca community moved east to

377 and built a village at the Kanedesaga location. In 1732, the village was abandoned after a

smallpox epidemic afflicted the community (RMSC).

The RMSC conducted a surface survey of the site in 1961. In a separate occasion, one

burial locus was discovered and excavated (RMSC). Artifacts recovered at the site include

shell gorget, shell wampum, glass beads, antler comb, brass projectile point, brass bangles,

Dutch gunflint, wooden ladle, iron knife, gun parts, brass container, brass button, iron spike,

Jesuit rings, lead musket balls, pewter spoon, Kaolin pipe stem, iron buckles, bronze Jesuit medals, iron file, pewter buckle, brass bangles, chalcendony knife flake, and an iron awl

(RMSC).

The occupation dates derive from the historical references to it. The site is unanimously agreed to be the village that the Seneca moved to after the aforementioned

destruction of their towns at the hands of the French. This sets the establishment date at

either 1687 or 1688. Also, the aforementioned reference to a smallpox outbreak at the site

sets the abandonment date at 1732. Wire Wound Beads, which date from 1715 to 1750, are

also found at the site (Sempowski 2007).

378 Appendix B: Ecological Factor Data for Villages and Random Points

This appendix contains all of the data collected on the natural and sociopolitical environmental data found at and within the catchments of the 145 village sites used within the study. It also includes the similar data for the randomly generated points. The data from each nation are followed by the data from its associated random points.

Distance from Largest Total nearest Distance Elevation Viewshed Viewshed Restricted trade from Mohawk Site Name Start End (ft) Size (ha) Size (ha) Palisade Location route waterway Otstungo 1450 1525 540 241.2 268.92 x x 2705 5600 Cayadutta 1525 1545 600 1402.92 3105 x x 200 4700 Garoga 1525 1545 920 41302.08 72120.24 x x 8800 11,700 Klock 1540 1565 740 12539.88 23704.56 5720 6800 Smith-Pagerie 1560 1580 940 45672.84 71620.92 x x 9385 13,100 Chapin 1580 1614 660 67425.84 196587.72 2480 4300 Barker 1580 1614 880 81523.8 151258.68 3640 4000 England's Woods #1 1580 1614 920 33581.52 77797.8 4575 5700 Rice's Woods 1580 1614 37423.8 78561.72 940 2900 Van der Werken 1580 1614 6520.68 11500.92 2745 400 Martin 1614 1626 400 887.04 1098.72 195 400 Wagner's Hollow 1614 1626 15015.24 29266.56 x 1610 2600 Briggs Run 1614 1626 500 3926.16 9648.72 x 690 1000 Coleman-VanDuesen 1614 1626 880 104741.28 165083.04 1740 2700 Failing 1615 1635 400 9590.76 14547.96 1255 200 Cromwell 1626 1635 420 9131.4 18635.76 1030 600 Yates 1626 1635 400 7197.84 12780 1755 500 Brown 1626 1635 6043.32 8106.48 830 300 Rumrill-Naylor 1635 1640 36071.64 42032.16 o x 1360 800 Prospect Hill 1635 1640 5556.24 11255.04 1360 300 Sand Hill #1 1635 1640 420 12481.56 21655.8 1650 500 Bauder 1635 1646 580 23521.68 34806.6 x 1145 1400 VanEvera-McKinney 1640 1646 5809.32 7899.48 x 2400 400 Oak Hill #1 1640 1646 720 60816.96 91122.84 1495 1700 Printup 1646 1659 500 25614.36 29993.4 x 740 400 Janie 1646 1666 21100.32 26797.68 1750 500 Mitchell 1646 1666 11471.04 15978.24 o 2000 400 Horatio Nellis 1646 1666 6517.8 9204.48 o x 1770 400 Fisk 1646 1666 13543.56 23865.12 925 600 Allen 1646 1666 10824.84 19455.48 x 1360 400 Freeman 1659 1666 420 15296.76 17140.68 x 1745 1300 Jackson-Everson 1657 1679 26295.48 33008.4 x 285 900 Fox Farm 1666 1679 380 18308.16 23479.2 x x 860 500 Schenk 1666 1679 320 3106.8 3666.24 x 1625 300 White Orchard 1666 1693 31289.76 37937.88 x 125 900 Caughnawaga 1679 1693 400 18883.8 30965.76 x 1600 800 Lipe 1679 1693 10034.28 14380.56 x 340 600

379

Best soil Soil drainage Soil Drainage drainage Highest Highest at location within 1 km within 2km Soil productivity productivity (4=well (4=well (4=well productivity soil within soil within drained; drained; drained; at location 1km 2km 1=poorly 1=poorly 1=poorly Mohawk Site Name (bu/acre) (bu/acre) (bushels/acre) drained) drained) drained) Otstungo 75 100 100 1 2 2 Cayadutta 110 110 110 4 4 4 Garoga 95 110 110 4 4 4 Klock 110 110 110 4 4 4 Smith-Pagerie 95 95 110 4 4 4 Chapin 70 110 110 4 4 4 Barker 70 70 100 4 4 4 England's Woods #1 70 70 70 4 4 4 Rice's Woods 110 110 110 4 4 4 Van der Werken 90 90 90 2 4 4 Martin 100 110 110 4 4 4 Wagner's Hollow 85 110 110 2 4 4 Briggs Run 100 100 100 4 4 4 Coleman-Van Duesen 70 110 110 4 4 4 Failing 100 100 100 4 4 4 Cromwell 110 110 110 4 4 4 Yates 100 110 110 4 4 4 Brown 100 110 110 4 4 4 Rumrill-Naylor 70 100 100 4 4 4 Prospect Hill 100 110 110 4 4 4 Sand Hill #1 100 100 100 4 4 4 Bauder 110 110 110 4 4 4 Van Evera-McKinney 100 100 100 4 4 4 Oak Hill #1 90 100 100 2 4 4 Printup 110 110 110 4 4 4 Janie 100 100 100 4 4 4 Mitchell 100 100 100 4 4 4 Horatio Nellis 100 110 110 4 4 4 Fisk 100 110 110 4 4 4 Allen 100 110 110 4 4 4 Freeman 110 110 110 4 4 4 Jackson-Everson 85 85 110 2 4 4 Fox Farm 100 110 110 4 4 4 Schenk 70 100 100 4 4 4 White Orchard 85 90 100 2 2 4 Caughnawaga 100 110 110 4 4 4 Lipe 85 90 100 2 4 4

380

Besthardwood Frost Lowest Lowest Harwood growth within Best action frost action frost action growth site 1km (1=very hardwood located in within 1km within 2km is located poor; growth (2=med; (2=med; (2=med; Mohawk Site Name in 4=Good) within 2km 3=high) 3=high) 3=high) Otstungo 2 4 4 2 2 2 Cayadutta 4 4 4 2 2 2 Garoga 4 4 4 2 2 2 Klock 4 4 4 2 2 2 Smith-Pagerie 4 4 4 2 2 2 Chapin 2 4 4 2 2 2 Barker 2 2 3 2 2 2 England's Woods #1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Rice's Woods 4 4 4 2 2 2 Van der Werken 4 4 4 3 1 1 Martin 3 4 4 2 2 2 Wagner's Hollow 4 4 4 3 2 2 Briggs Run 3 3 3 2 2 2 Coleman-VanDuesen 2 4 4 2 2 2 Failing 3 4 4 2 2 2 Cromwell 4 4 4 2 2 2 Yates 3 4 4 2 2 2 Brown 3 4 4 2 2 2 Rumrill-Naylor 2 4 4 2 2 2 Prospect Hill 3 4 4 2 2 2 Sand Hill #1 3 4 4 2 2 2 Bauder 4 4 4 2 2 2 VanEvera-McKinney 3 4 4 2 2 2 Oak Hill #1 4 4 4 2 2 2 Printup 4 4 4 2 2 2 Janie 3 4 4 2 2 2 Mitchell 3 4 4 2 2 2 Horatio Nellis 3 4 4 2 2 2 Fisk 4 4 4 2 2 2 Allen 3 4 4 2 2 2 Freeman 4 4 4 2 2 2 Jackson-Everson 4 4 4 3 2 2 Fox Farm 3 4 4 2 2 2 Schenk 2 3 4 2 2 2 White Orchard 4 4 4 3 2 2 Caughnawaga 3 4 4 2 2 2 Lipe 4 4 4 3 2 2

381

Within Within 2km, 2km, percentage percentage Within Within Within Within of of 2km, 2km, 2km, 2km, Within 2km, moderately somewhat percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage well poorly of poorly of 110 of 100 of of well- drained drained drained bu/acre bu/acre moderate Mohawk Site Name drained soil soil soil soil land land frost action Otstungo 0 0 49 51 0 46 51 Cayadutta 100 0 0 0 94 4 1 Garoga 100 0 0 0 18 0 100 Klock 95 5 0 0 54 0 100 Smith-Pagerie 100 0 0 0 1 0 100 Chapin 100 0 0 0 16 5 100 Barker 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 England's Woods #1 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 Rice's Woods 100 0 0 0 53 0 100 Van der Werken 84 0 16 0 0 0 16(low) Martin 97 0 3 0 21 79 3 Wagner's Hollow 23 0 77 0 23 0 23 Briggs Run 100 0 0 0 0 67 100 Coleman-VanDuesen 100 0 0 0 22 0 100 Failing 70 0 30 0 0 46 69 Cromwell 88 0 12 0 64 29 5 Yates 93 0 7 0 35 8 2 Brown 92 0 8 0 38 33 92 Rumrill-Naylor 79 0 21 0 0 25 24 Prospect Hill 79 0 21 0 21 48 78 Sand Hill #1 50 0 50 0 0 36 49 Bauder 80 8 12 0 30 35 13 VanEvera-McKinney 81 0 19 0 0 25 87 Oak Hill #1 21 0 79 0 0 21 21 Printup 90 0 10 0 49 51 10 Janie 91 0 12 0 0 28 12 Mitchell 81 0 19 0 0 24 19 Horatio Nellis 85 0 17 0 16 30 85 Fisk 96 0 4 0 41 40 96 Allen 83 0 21 0 32 47 83 Freeman 84 0 16 0 56 44 16 Jackson-Everson 42 0 58 0 9 10 41 Fox Farm 100 0 0 0 20 80 100 Schenk 100 0 0 0 4 32 100 White Orchard 5 0 95 0 0 5 5 Caughnawaga 99 0 1 0 39 61 100 Lipe 21 0 83 0 0 16 21

382

Average Majority aspect in slope in catchment catchment (SE:112- (1=0-4%; 158; S:158- Slope at 2=4-8%; 203; Soil texture Distance to location 3=8-15%; SW:203- Mohawk Site Name at location loamy soil (mean) 4>15%) 248) Otstungo FL 0 21.7 1 150.3 Cayadutta FL 0 27.0 1 197.0 Garoga CL 0 8.5 1 178.6 Klock FL 0 13.0 4 176.8 Smith-Pagerie CL 0 20.2 4 181.0 Chapin L 0 27.3 4 131.1 Barker L 0 13.1 4 120.0 England's Woods #1 L 0 9.0 1 212.3 Rice's Woods FL 0 15.4 1 187.2 Van der Werken F 158 12.1 1 241.9 Martin LSk 0 30.7 1 113.0 Wagner's Hollow F 630 21.1 1 208.1 Briggs Run LSk 0 15.4 4 136.2 Coleman-VanDuesen L 0 1.2 1 182.5 Failing LSk 0 13.2 3 108.3 Cromwell FL 0 16.8 1 151.3 Yates LSk 0 16.8 4 166.7 Brown LSk 0 6.4 2 139.1 Rumrill-Naylor L 0 5.7 2 144.6 Prospect Hill LSk 0 33.6 1 142.5 Sand Hill #1 LSk 0 9.8 1 119.5 Bauder FL 0 9.4 4 191.3 VanEvera-McKinney LSk 0 4.7 1 146.1 Oak Hill #1 FL 0 15.4 1 112.6 Printup FL 0 9.9 1 241.4 Janie LSk 0 21.1 1 216.5 Mitchell LSk 0 8.0 2 152.2 Horatio Nellis LSk 0 7.5 1 112.7 Fisk LSk 0 16.2 1 114.4 Allen LSk 0 7.7 1 138.9 Freeman FL 0 5.1 1 225.6 Jackson-Everson FL 0 8.5 1 205.7 Fox Farm LSk 0 4.9 1 200.3 Schenk L 0 4.9 1 200.0 White Orchard F 250 7.9 1 211.5 Caughnawaga LSk 0 1.0 1 189.6 Lipe F 780 12.2 1 207.0

383

Distance to good Distance to Distance to well- hardwood medium frost Mohawk Site Name drained soil growth action Otstungo 2800 225 0 Cayadutta 0 0 0 Garoga 0 0 0 Klock 0 0 0 Smith-Pagerie 0 0 0 Chapin 0 1050 0 Barker 0 2580 0 England's Woods #1 0 2300 0 Rice's Woods 0 0 0 Van der Werken 150 0 2250 Martin 0 720 0 Wagner's Hollow 630 0 600 Briggs Run 0 1800 0 Coleman-VanDuesen 0 250 0 Failing 0 700 0 Cromwell 0 0 0 Yates 0 300 0 Brown 0 320 0 Rumrill-Naylor 0 500 0 Prospect Hill 0 630 0 Sand Hill #1 0 320 0 Bauder 0 0 0 VanEvera-McKinney 0 850 0 Oak Hill #1 640 0 0 Printup 0 0 0 Janie 0 900 0 Mitchell 0 850 0 Horatio Nellis 0 350 0 Fisk 0 20 0 Allen 0 60 0 Freeman 0 0 0 Jackson-Everson 100 0 120 Fox Farm 0 850 0 Schenk 0 1650 0 White Orchard 1100 0 1150 Caughnawaga 0 500 0 Lipe 730 0 740

384

Highest Soil productivity Highest Distance from Distance productivity soil within productivity soil Mohawk Elevati Viewshed nearest trade from at location 1km within 2km Random Point on size route waterway (bu/acre) (bu/acre) (bushels/acre) random point 0 410 13875.12 2460 1100 100 110 110 random point 1 890 133229.16 4295 4900 110 110 110 random point 2 530 69980.76 1245 3100 70 100 110 random point 3 750 39878.64 3615 6200 70 110 110 random point 4 790 7410.6 4550 5600 70 85 85 random point 5 620 2333.52 5900 6900 110 110 110 random point 6 410 35858.88 285 1200 100 100 110 random point 7 840 14210.64 7070 10500 70 70 95 random point 8 720 152417.52 600 3600 110 110 110 random point 9 410 22686.12 1170 1300 100 110 110 random point 10 480 19840.68 1855 1400 110 110 110 random point 11 720 135729.36 1825 5300 110 110 110 random point 12 890 62420.76 3260 2400 110 110 110 random point 13 740 20144.88 4750 7500 85 110 110 random point 14 790 63178.92 5480 6200 110 110 110 random point 15 610 4612.68 2265 3300 110 110 110 random point 16 960 99777.24 9100 14200 110 110 110 random point 17 410 10710 1135 1300 100 100 110 random point 18 300 3085.56 1125 0 100 110 110 random point 19 890 81048.24 380 1300 70 110 110 random point 20 560 57339.72 65 2300 100 110 110 random point 21 560 45792.36 325 2100 90 90 110 random point 22 640 14804.28 30 3500 85 100 110 random point 23 770 53406.72 2305 4100 85 85 110 random point 24 560 47214 2760 1500 70 110 110 random point 25 800 27276.84 815 3100 70 100 110 random point 26 520 16360.2 70 800 110 110 110 random point 27 690 8685 1130 5000 75 85 85 random point 28 560 28709.28 3660 3100 90 110 110 random point 29 690 15119.28 1015 4900 75 85 85 random point 30 750 5977.8 350 2700 70 100 110 random point 31 610 7166.52 1230 900 100 100 110 random point 32 790 130388.4 3715 5000 85 100 100 random point 33 640 4155.84 900 3200 85 100 110 random point 34 720 30023.28 1430 3300 110 110 110 random point 35 460 26665.56 1375 600 100 110 110 random point 36 510 24791.4 380 500 100 100 100

385

Soil drainage Best soil at drainage location within 2km Besthardwood (4=well Soil Drainage (4=well Harwood growth within Best drained; within 1 km (4=well drained; growth 1km (1=very hardwood Mohawk Random 1=poorly drained; 1=poorly 1=poorly site is poor; growth within Point drained) drained) drained) located in 4=Good) 2km random point 0 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 2 4 4 4 2 3 4 random point 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 random point 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 random point 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 6 4 4 4 3 3 4 random point 7 4 4 4 2 2 4 random point 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 9 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 10 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 11 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 12 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 13 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 15 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 16 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 17 4 4 4 3 3 4 random point 18 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 19 4 4 4 2 4 4 random point 20 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 21 2 2 4 4 4 4 random point 22 2 2 4 4 4 4 random point 23 2 2 4 4 4 4 random point 24 4 4 4 2 4 4 random point 25 4 4 4 2 4 4 random point 26 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 27 1 2 2 2 4 4 random point 28 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 29 1 2 2 2 4 4 random point 30 4 4 4 2 4 4 random point 31 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 32 2 2 2 4 4 4 random point 33 2 2 4 4 4 4 random point 34 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 35 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 36 4 4 4 3 3 4

386

Frost action Lowest frost located in action within Lowest frost action Mohawk Random (2=med; 1km (2=med; within 2km (2=med; Point 3=high) 3=high) 3=high) random point 0 2 2 2 random point 1 2 2 2 random point 2 2 2 2 random point 3 2 2 2 random point 4 2 2 2 random point 5 2 2 2 random point 6 2 2 2 random point 7 2 2 2 random point 8 2 2 2 random point 9 2 2 2 random point 10 2 2 2 random point 11 2 2 2 random point 12 2 2 2 random point 13 3 2 2 random point 14 2 2 2 random point 15 2 2 2 random point 16 2 2 2 random point 17 2 2 2 random point 18 2 2 2 random point 19 2 2 2 random point 20 3 2 2 random point 21 3 3 2 random point 22 3 2 2 random point 23 3 3 2 random point 24 2 2 2 random point 25 2 2 2 random point 26 2 2 2 random point 27 2 2 2 random point 28 3 2 2 random point 29 2 2 2 random point 30 2 2 2 random point 31 2 2 2 random point 32 3 2 2 random point 33 3 2 2 random point 34 2 2 2 random point 35 2 2 2 random point 36 2 2 2

387

Majority slope in Average catchment aspect in Soil (1=0-4%; catchment texture Slope at 2=4-8%; (SE:112-158; Mohawk Random at Distance to loamy location 3=8-15%; S:158-203; Point location soil (mean) 4>15%) SW:203-248) random point 0 LSk 0 9.6 1 161.9 random point 1 FL 0 37.4 3 178.0 random point 2 L 0 5.4 4 118.0 random point 3 L 0 30.8 1 166.9 random point 4 L 0 5.2 1 188.6 random point 5 FL 0 4.8 3 229.8 random point 6 LSk 0 0.6 1 147.5 random point 7 L 0 5.9 1 201.5 random point 8 FL 0 3.8 1 199.7 random point 9 LSk 0 13.7 1 177.9 random point 10 FL 0 11.2 1 212.2 random point 11 FL 0 5.6 4 144.0 random point 12 FL 0 2.7 1 202.6 random point 13 FL 0 10.0 1 190.8 random point 14 Fl 0 4.5 4 172.7 random point 15 FL 0 7.1 4 185.7 random point 16 CL 0 0.0 4 182.2 random point 17 LSk 0 1.1 1 174.7 random point 18 LSk 0 5.5 1 189.1 random point 19 L 0 12.1 1 177.0 random point 20 FL 0 1.3 1 136.6 random point 21 FL 0 5.6 1 223.8 random point 22 FL 0 1.3 1 131.7 random point 23 FL 0 13.7 1 222.4 random point 24 L 0 5.9 4 196.9 random point 25 L 0 5.8 1 212.2 random point 26 FL 0 31.8 1 181.8 random point 27 F 50 17.6 1 124.0 random point 28 FL 0 13.2 1 199.7 random point 29 F 150 15.5 1 187.9 random point 30 L 0 103.1 1 188.8 random point 31 LSk 0 6.5 1 199.1 random point 32 FL 0 5.2 1 113.0 random point 33 FL 0 3.2 1 140.2 random point 34 FL 0 6.6 1 178.6 random point 35 LSk 0 5.4 1 153.6 random point 36 LSk 0 17.0 1 169.5

388

Distance to well-drained Distance to good hardwood Distance to medium Mohawk Random Point soil growth frost action random point 0 0 10 0 random point 1 0 0 0 random point 2 0 1350 0 random point 3 0 650 0 random point 4 0 320 0 random point 5 0 0 0 random point 6 0 1700 0 random point 7 0 1400 0 random point 8 0 0 0 random point 9 0 600 0 random point 10 0 0 0 random point 11 0 0 0 random point 12 0 0 0 random point 13 330 0 330 random point 14 0 0 0 random point 15 0 0 0 random point 16 0 0 0 random point 17 0 1900 0 random point 18 0 200 0 random point 19 0 400 0 random point 20 750 0 760 random point 21 1400 0 1350 random point 22 1500 0 260 random point 23 1700 0 1700 random point 24 0 300 0 random point 25 0 570 0 random point 26 0 0 0 random point 27 2800 50 0 random point 28 230 0 220 random point 29 2700 150 0 random point 30 0 180 0 random point 31 0 750 0 random point 32 2150 0 830 random point 33 1500 0 420 random point 34 0 0 0 random point 35 0 480 0 random point 36 0 980 0

389

Restricted Distance Largest Total Location from Distance Oneida Site Elevation Viewshed Viewshed (binary; trade from Name Start End (ft) Size (ha) Size (ha) Palisade 1=yes) route waterway Buyea 1490 1515 860 3818.16 5971.68 x x 1495 8100 Moon 1490 1515 940 4819.68 12423.6 x 1825 6700 Goff 1490 1515 930 4964.76 7411.32 x 2740 6200 Brunk 1490 1515 670 2367.36 2942.28 2850 6600 Olcott 1525 1545 1000 5195.52 8292.96 x 6895 5300 Vaillancourt 1550 1575 900 2234.16 6572.16 x 5715 5500 Bach 1560 1580 1400 8738.64 11172.6 x x 7040 8100 Diable 1570 1600 1160 2004.84 3515.76 x x 10650 5400 Cameron 1605 1620 600 6191.28 16529.76 x x 2790 100 Blowers 1620 1635 900 13729.68 22749.12 x x 6430 1400 Wilson 1620 1635 900 14750.28 22582.08 x x 6020 1100 Thurston 1635 1655 910 7317.36 13227.84 x x 11,265 4900 Marshall 1635 1655 900 5470.56 11459.88 o 11,990 5900 Stone Quarry 1650 1660 1220 6621.84 17799.84 x 10,780 4800 Dungey 1655 1670 1260 27276.12 32779.08 8100 3300 March 1655 1670 1200 15963.48 18561.6 5650 2600 Sullivan 1665 1680 1000 5418.36 12727.8 o 4220 2200 Collins 1677 1685 940 14764.68 21930.48 3810 2600 Upper Hogan 1665 1685 1080 7305.12 11541.24 2930 3800 Primes Hill 1685 1720 1600 92754.36 152918.64 x 10,015 5300

Soil drainage at location Highest Highest (4=well; Highest Highest Soil productivity productivity 3=mod well; soil soil productivi soil within 1 soil within 2 2=somewhat drainage Drainage Oneida Site ty at km km poorly; within within Name location (bu/acre) (bu/acre) 1=poorly) 1km 2km Buyea 85 105 105 2 3 3 Moon 105 105 105 3 3 3 Goff 85 105 110 2 3 4 Brunk 85 105 110 2 3 4 Olcott 110 110 110 4 4 4 Vaillancourt 105 110 110 3 4 4 Bach 110 110 110 4 4 4 Diable 110 110 110 4 4 4 Cameron 85 100 100 2 4 4 Blowers 85 110 110 2 4 4 Wilson 110 110 110 4 4 4 Thurston 90 110 110 4 4 4 Marshall 90 110 110 4 4 4 Stone Quarry 110 110 110 4 4 4 Dungey 110 110 110 4 4 4 March 110 110 110 4 4 4 Sullivan 110 110 110 4 4 4 Collins 85 110 110 2 4 4 Upper Hogan 85 110 110 2 4 4 Primes Hill 110 110 110 4 4 4

390

Best hardwood Best Best growth hardwood Lowest frost hardwood within 1km growth within Frost action action growth (1=very 2km (1=very at location within 1km Lowest frost Oneida Site site is poor; poor; (2=med; (1=low; action Name located in 4=Good) 4=Good) 3=high) 3=high) within 2km Buyea 4 4 4 3 2 2 Moon 4 4 4 2 2 2 Goff 4 4 4 3 2 2 Brunk 4 4 4 3 2 2 Olcott 4 4 4 2 2 2 Vaillancourt 4 4 4 2 2 2 Bach 4 4 4 2 2 2 Diable 4 4 4 2 2 2 Cameron 4 4 4 3 2 2 Blowers 4 4 4 3 2 2 Wilson 4 4 4 2 2 2 Thurston 3 4 4 2 2 2 Marshall 3 4 4 2 2 2 Stone Quarry 4 4 4 2 2 2 Dungey 4 4 4 2 2 2 March 4 4 4 2 2 2 Sullivan 4 4 4 2 2 2 Collins 4 4 4 3 2 2 Upper Hogan 4 4 4 3 2 2 Primes Hill 4 4 4 2 2 2

Within 2km, Within percentage Within 2km, 2km, Within 2km, of percentage Within 2km, Within 2km, percentage Within 2km, percentage moderately of somewhat percentage percentage of 100 percentage of Oneida Site of well- well drained poorly of poorly of 110 bu/acre moderate Name drained soil soil drained soil drained soil bu/acre land land frost action Buyea 0 70 30 0 0 27(105) 27 Moon 0 43 57 0 0 45(105) 45 Goff 3 40 57 0 3 35(105) 38 Brunk 1 36 63 0 0 37(105) 37 Olcott 49 9 42 0 50 9(105) 59 Vaillancourt 40 22 38 0 40 22(105) 62 Bach 77 23 0 0 77 23(105) 100 Diable 57 0 43 0 46 0 43 Cameron 42 0 58 0 <1 42 42 Blowers 64 0 36 0 50 14 64 Wilson 62 0 38 0 35 18 62 Thurston 62 0 38 0 25 0 62 Marshall 58 0 42 0 18 0 58 Stone Quarry 68 0 32 0 68 0 68 Dungey 81 0 19 0 81 0 81 March 77 0 23 0 77 0 77 Sullivan 49 0 51 0 49 0 49 Collins 53 0 47 0 53 0 53 Upper Hogan 35 0 65 0 35 0 35 Primes Hill 100 0 0 0 100 0 100

391

Majority slope in Average aspect in catchment (1=0- catchment 4%; 2=4-8%; (SE:112-158; Oneida Site Soil texture at Distance to loamy Slope at location 3=8-15%; S:158-203; Name location soil (mean) 4>15%) SW:203-248) Buyea F 300 8.4 4 151.6 Moon FL 0 16.0 1 214.0 Goff FL 0 23.3 1 172.1 Brunk F 150 12.1 3 34.1 Olcott FL 0 9.3 4 150.8 Vaillancourt FL 0 19.1 4 123.7 Bach FL 0 13.1 1 161.0 Diable FL 0 25.1 4 161.7 Cameron FL 0 26.5 1 214.9 Blowers FL 0 16.6 1 259.1 Wilson FL 0 34.8 1 251.3 Thurston FLS 0 16.3 1 100.6 Marshall FLS 0 6.4 4 156.6 Stone Quarry FL 0 5.0 1 264.1 Dungey FL 0 3.7 1 272.5 March FL 0 3.2 1 252.0 Sullivan FL 0 8.5 1 312.0 Collins FL 0 11.5 1 220.9 Upper Hogan FL 0 9.2 1 181.5 Primes Hill FL 0 10.4 3 184.1

Distance to good hardwood Distance to moderate frost Oneida Site Name Distance to well-drained soil growth action Buyea 2000 0 900 Moon 2200 0 0 Goff 1200 0 300 Brunk 1300 0 250 Olcott 0 0 0 Vaillancourt 500 0 0 Bach 0 0 0 Diable 0 0 0 Cameron 450 0 400 Blowers 85 0 100 Wilson 0 0 0 Thurston 0 320 0 Marshall 0 210 0 Stone Quarry 0 0 0 Dungey 0 0 0 March 0 0 0 Sullivan 0 0 0 Collins 450 0 480 Upper Hogan 130 0 150 Primes Hill 0 0 0

392

Highest Highest Distance productivity productivity from Distance Soil soil within 1 soil within 2 Oneida Random Elevation Viewshed trade from located km km Point (ft) size route waterway in (bu/acre) (bu/acre) random point 1 1280 40,955.76 3180 4100 85 110 110 random point 2 1210 47,144.16 855 3700 85 105 105 random point 3 1540 51,309.72 10,010 6600 110 110 110 random point 4 1270 701.64 3695 3900 85 110 110 random point 5 1050 23,541.48 4100 2600 85 110 110 random point 6 1440 74,770.92 6995 4300 110 110 110 random point 7 1130 38,425.68 2830 3200 85 110 110 random point 8 1400 39564 6055 3900 110 110 110 random point 9 1380 31404.6 8195 3800 110 110 110 random point 10 1100 19325.16 7430 2300 110 110 110 random point 11 1210 1974.96 10,850 6900 85 110 110 random point 12 930 2139.84 6400 5400 85 110 110 random point 13 1130 4243.32 3015 9100 105 110 110 random point 14 790 3081.6 12,260 6200 90 110 110 random point 15 1070 1304.28 9960 5700 85 85 110 random point 16 790 1806.84 5760 5000 85 110 110 random point 17 1310 17,338.32 10,165 7000 110 110 110 random point 18 1270 15,401.52 10,650 6200 85 85 110 random point 19 1210 9883.8 10,940 6200 85 110 110

Soil Best Best drainage at hardwood hardwood location growth growth (4=well; Highest Best within within 3=mod well; soil hardwood 1km 2km 2=somewhat Highest soil Drainage growth (1=very (1=very poorly; drainage within within site is poor; poor; Oneida Random Point 1=poorly) 1km 2km located in 4=Good) 4=Good) random point 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 random point 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 5 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 7 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 10 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 11 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 12 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 13 3 4 4 4 4 4 random point 14 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 15 2 2 4 4 4 4 random point 16 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 18 2 2 4 4 4 4 random point 19 2 4 4 4 4 4

393

Frost Lowest Lowest action at frost action frost location within 1km action Oneida Random (2=med; (1=low; within Point 3=high) 3=high) 2km random point 1 3 2 2 random point 2 3 2 2 random point 3 2 2 2 random point 4 3 2 2 random point 5 3 2 2 random point 6 2 2 2 random point 7 3 2 2 random point 8 2 2 2 random point 9 2 2 2 random point 10 2 2 2 random point 11 3 2 2 random point 12 3 2 2 random point 13 2 2 2 random point 14 3 2 2 random point 15 3 3 2 random point 16 3 2 2 random point 17 2 2 2 random point 18 3 3 2 random point 19 3 2 2

Average Majority aspect in slope in catchment catchment (SE:112- (1=0-4%; 158; S:158- Slope at 2=4-8%; 203; Soil texture Distance to loamy location 3=8-15%; SW:203- Oneida Random Point at location soil (mean) 4>15%) 248) random point 1 FL 0 3.9 4 154.4 random point 2 FL 0 1.1 2 150.0 random point 3 FL 0 8.5 4 155.1 random point 4 FL 0 4.4 3 117.1 random point 5 FL 0 0.9 4 224.9 random point 6 FL 0 16.9 1 79.5 random point 7 FL 0 1.5 3 91.9 random point 8 FL 0 12.4 1 108.2 random point 9 FL 0 6.7 1 133.5 random point 10 FL 0 6.5 3 243.2 random point 11 FL 0 19.3 4 108.2 random point 12 FL 0 9.5 1 173.1 random point 13 F 280 33.7 4 153.6 random point 14 FL 0 5.4 1 144.0 random point 15 F 350 5.6 4 214.7 random point 16 FL 0 4.5 4 184.0 random point 17 F 190 13.7 4 152.0 random point 18 FL 0 0.0 1 150.4 random point 19 FL 0 8.7 1 182.7

394

Distance to Distance to well- Distance to good moderate frost Oneida Random Point drained soil hardwood growth action random point 1 150 0 140 random point 2 20 0 20 random point 3 780 0 40 random point 4 0 0 0 random point 5 210 0 210 random point 6 300 0 320 random point 7 0 0 0 random point 8 10 0 40 random point 9 0 0 0 random point 10 0 0 0 random point 11 0 0 0 random point 12 880 0 890 random point 13 250 0 280 random point 14 670 0 0 random point 15 320 0 350 random point 16 1200 0 1090 random point 17 200 0 200 random point 18 0 0 0 random point 19 1400 0 1200

395

Distance Largest Total Restricte from Distance Onondaga Site Elevation viewshed Viewshed Palisa d overlan from Name Start End (ft) size (ha) Size (ha) de Location d trail waterway Cemetery 1500 1525 860 4451.76 7897.32 x x 1000 1200 Indian Hill II 1500 1525 900 18325.44 27559.44 275 2000 Nursery 1525 1550 760 5618.52 6276.24 480 50 Barnes 1525 1550 1020 14613.84 35523.00 x 1050 1800 McNab 1525 1550 1200 11067.12 16059.24 3220 100 Temperance House 1550 1570 960 17314.92 30204.00 x x 3540 2500 Atwell 1550 1570 1040 9404.28 12819.60 x x 6560 2400 Quirk 1570 1590 1120 7507.80 8342.64 x 7350 5700 Sheldon 1570 1590 1060 9334.44 18511.20 x 8660 5400 Pickering 1570 1590 1240 8540.64 10364.04 x 12100 5700 Chase 1590 1610 1180 9308.52 18391.68 x x 12060 7900 Dwyer 1590 1610 1420 23142.60 42070.68 12200 9500 Pompey Center 1610 1625 1240 5184.72 7588.08 x 6880 6900 Pratt's Falls 1625 1635 1260 3944.16 5524.56 3545 6300 Shurtleff 1635 1645 1500 30286.44 48348.00 3055 6600 Carley 1645 1650 1280 29110.68 41848.56 1520 5800 Lot 18 1650 1655 1100 30990.60 41437.44 260 4800 Indian Castle 1655 1663 900 5474.16 7657.56 75 4100 Indian Hill 1663 1682 900 16959.24 31865.40 x 215 2300 Weston 1682 1696 1120 10332.00 21195.00 x 1000 3100 Jamesville 1696 1720 700 7897.68 9518.40 x 1225 500

Soil drainage at location Highest Highest (4=well; Soil productivity productivity 3=mod well; productivity soil within soil within 2=somewhat Highest soil Highest soil Onondaga Site at location 1km 2km poorly; drainage Drainage Name (bu/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) 1=poorly) within 1km within 2km Cemetery 110 110 110 4 4 4 Indian Hill II 110 110 110 4 4 4 Nursery 110 110 110 3 4 4 Barnes 110 110 110 4 4 4 McNab 110 110 110 4 4 4 Temperance House 110 110 110 4 4 4 Atwell 110 110 110 3 4 4 Quirk 110 110 110 4 4 4 Sheldon 110 110 110 4 4 4 Pickering 110 110 110 4 4 4 Chase 110 110 110 4 4 4 Dwyer 110 110 110 4 4 4 Pompey Center 110 110 110 4 4 4 Pratt's Falls 105 110 110 3 4 4 Shurtleff 110 110 110 4 4 4 Carley 110 110 110 4 4 4 Lot 18 110 110 110 4 4 4 Indian Castle 110 110 110 4 4 4 Indian Hill 110 110 110 4 4 4 Weston 110 110 110 4 4 4 Jamesville 110 110 110 4 4 4

396

Best hardwood growth Lowest frost Best within 1km Best hardwood Frost action action hardwood (1=very growth within 2km at location within 1km Lowest frost Onondaga Site growth at poor; (1=very poor; (2=med; (1=low; action Name location 4=Good) 4=Good) 3=high) 3=high) within 2km Cemetery 4 4 4 2 2 2 Indian Hill II 4 4 4 2 2 2 Nursery 4 4 4 2 2 2 Barnes 4 4 4 2 2 2 McNab 4 4 4 2 2 2 Temperance House 4 4 4 2 2 2 Atwell 4 4 4 2 2 2 Quirk 4 4 4 2 2 2 Sheldon 4 4 4 2 2 2 Pickering 4 4 4 2 2 2 Chase 4 4 4 2 2 2 Dwyer 4 4 4 2 2 2 Pompey Center 4 4 4 2 2 2 Pratt's Falls 4 4 4 2 2 2 Shurtleff 4 4 4 2 2 2 Carley 4 4 4 2 2 2 Lot 18 4 4 4 2 2 2 Indian Castle 4 4 4 2 2 2 Indian Hill 4 4 4 2 2 2 Weston 4 4 4 2 2 2 Jamesville 4 4 4 2 2 2

Within Within 2km, Within Within Within 2km, percentage Within 2km, 2km, 2km, 2km, percentage of percentage percentage percentage percentage Within 2km, of well- moderately of somewhat of poorly of 110 of 100 percentage of Onondaga Site drained well drained poorly drained bu/acre bu/acre moderate Name soil soil drained soil soil land land frost action Cemetery 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Indian Hill II 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Nursery 87 13 0 0 100 0 100 Barnes 79 21 0 0 100 0 100 McNab 98 2 0 0 98 2 100 Temper. House 64 36 0 0 97 3 100 Atwell 43 57 0 0 91 9 100 Quirk 93 7 0 0 100 0 100 Sheldon 61 39 0 0 100 0 100 Pickering 94 6 0 0 82 3 100 Chase 90 10 0 0 68 0 100 Dwyer 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Pompey Center 94 6 0 0 80 6 100 Pratt's Falls 60 40 0 0 60 40 100 Shurtleff 99 1 0 0 99 1 100 Carley 88 12 0 0 88 12 100 Lot 18 90 0 10 0 90 0 90 Indian Castle 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Indian Hill 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Weston 53 7 40 0 53 7 60 Jamesville 68 32 0 0 73 27 100

397

Majority slope Average aspect in catchment in catchment (1=0-4%; 2=4- (SE:112-158; Soil texture at Distance to loamy Slope at location 8%; 3=8-15%; S:158-203; Onondaga Site Name location soil (mean) 4>15%) SW:203-248) Cemetery FL 0 6.0 1 193.2 Indian Hill II FL 0 1.4 1 53.1 Nursery CL 0 2.8 1 165.3 Barnes FL 0 13.6 1 200.4 McNab FL 0 3.3 1 166.8 Temper. House FL 0 12.2 1 188.9 Atwell CL 0 12.0 1 213.1 Quirk FL 0 6.5 1 144.8 Sheldon FL 0 14.5 1 131.3 Pickering FL 0 14.3 1 209.5 Chase FL 0 19.9 1 148.0 Dwyer FL 0 2.8 1 185.7 Pompey Center FL 0 9.1 1 150.0 Pratt's Falls FL 0 29.0 1 132.4 Shurtleff FL 0 6.2 1 216.0 Carley FL 0 6.1 1 110.0 Lot 18 FL 0 4.5 4 82.2 Indian Castle FL 0 13.8 1 131.3 Indian Hill FL 0 4.8 1 176.9 Weston FL 0 7.2 3 168.7 Jamesville FL 0 4.0 1 185.9

Distance to well-drained Distance to good Distance to moderate frost Onondaga Site Name soil hardwood growth action Cemetery 0 0 0 Indian Hill II 0 0 0 Nursery 130 0 0 Barnes 0 0 0 McNab 0 0 0 Temper. House 0 0 0 Atwell 65 0 0 Quirk 0 0 0 Sheldon 0 0 0 Pickering 0 0 0 Chase 0 0 0 Dwyer 0 0 0 Pompey Center 0 0 0 Pratt's Falls 560 0 0 Shurtleff 0 0 0 Carley 0 0 0 Lot 18 0 0 0 Indian Castle 0 0 0 Indian Hill 0 0 0 Weston 0 0 0 Jamesville 0 0 0

398

Highest Highest Distance productivity productivity from Distance Soil soil within soil within Onondaga Elevati Viewshed trade from productivity 1km 2km Random Point on (ft) size route waterway at location (bu/acre) (bu/acre) random point 01 1120 47753.28 455 2600 110 110 110 random point 0 1330 39471.84 1240 4300 110 110 110 random point 1 880 9354.24 430 2800 110 110 110 random point 2 1400 2980.8 13790 9300 110 110 110 random point 3 1460 12656.88 16280 10,000 80 110 110 random point 4 820 7028.28 3080 5000 110 110 110 random point 5 760 7826.4 315 300 110 110 110 random point 6 1320 21273.84 10755 4000 110 110 110 random point 7 1000 1473.48 7165 7500 110 110 110 random point 8 1280 21396.6 9540 3800 110 110 110 random point 9 1300 9388.8 14605 11500 85 110 110 random point 10 1460 43124.4 750 4500 110 110 110 random point 11 1380 16441.92 11240 5000 110 110 110 random point 12 500 1918.44 6535 800 105 120 120 random point 13 1340 5959.44 17760 6300 90 100 110 random point 14 1700 3817.08 17630 3800 110 110 110 random point 15 1440 18352.08 4400 1600 110 110 110 random point 16 1340 19503.72 4100 8400 105 110 110 random point 17 1320 16418.16 12050 3800 100 110 110 random point 18 680 19725.48 4680 300 105 105 105

Soil drainage site is located in Best Best (4=well; Best hardwood hardwood 3=mod well; hardwood growth growth 2=somewhat Highest soil Highest soil growth within 1km within 2km Onondaga Random poorly; drainage within Drainage site is (1=very poor; (1=very poor; Point 1=poorly) 1km within 2km located in 4=good) 4=good) random point 01 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 random point 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 random point 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 random point 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 9 3 4 4 3 3 4 random point 10 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 11 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 12 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 13 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 14 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 15 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 16 3 4 4 4 4 4 random point 17 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 18 3 4 4 4 4 4

399 Frost action at location Lowest frost action Lowest frost Onondaga Random (2=med; within 1km (1=low; action Point 3=high) 3=high) within 2km random point 01 2 2 2 random point 0 2 2 2 random point 1 2 2 2 random point 2 2 2 2 random point 3 2 2 2 random point 4 2 2 2 random point 5 2 2 2 random point 6 2 2 2 random point 7 2 2 2 random point 8 2 2 2 random point 9 2 2 2 random point 10 2 2 2 random point 11 2 2 2 random point 12 2 2 2 random point 13 2 2 2 random point 14 2 2 2 random point 15 2 2 2 random point 16 2 2 2 random point 17 2 2 2 random point 18 2 2 2

Majority slope in catchment Average aspect (1=0-4%; in catchment Slope at 2=4-8%; (SE:112-158; Soil texture at Distance to loamy location 3=8-15%; S:158-203; Onondaga Random Point location soil (mean) 4>15%) SW:203-248) random point 01 FL 0 20.4 1 126.7 random point 0 FL 0 7.0 1 218.5 random point 1 FL 0 0.0 1 238.5 random point 2 FL 0 15.7 1 189.2 random point 3 FL 0 17.0 1 191.2 random point 4 CL 0 43.6 4 155.7 random point 5 FL 0 2.3 4 197.8 random point 6 CL 0 2.9 1 167.9 random point 7 FL 0 5.4 1 238.2 random point 8 FL 0 31.2 4 224.5 random point 9 FL 0 10.6 1 194.9 random point 10 CL 0 3.7 1 167.4 random point 11 FL 0 8.6 1 181.5 random point 12 FL 0 17.6 4 170.9 random point 13 LSk 0 6.3 1 210.6 random point 14 FLS 0 49.7 1 153.7 random point 15 FL 0 9.6 4 191.5 random point 16 FL 0 14.8 1 162.0 random point 17 FL 0 17.7 1 131.2 random point 18 LSk 0 2.9 1 217.3

400

Distance to well- Distance to good hardwood Distance to moderate Onondaga Random Point drained soil growth frost action random point 01 0 0 0 random point 0 0 0 0 random point 1 0 0 0 random point 2 0 0 0 random point 3 0 0 0 random point 4 110 830 0 random point 5 20 0 0 random point 6 130 0 0 random point 7 0 0 0 random point 8 0 0 0 random point 9 0 0 0 random point 10 160 1200 0 random point 11 0 0 0 random point 12 0 0 0 random point 13 0 500 0 random point 14 0 1400 0 random point 15 0 0 0 random point 16 0 0 0 random point 17 640 0 0 random point 18 0 850 0

401

Restrict Distance Largest Total ed from Distance Cayuga Site Elevation viewshed Viewshed Palisa Locatio overland from Name Start End (ft) size (ha) Size (ha) de n trail waterway Landon 1450 1525 1100 22930.92 33041.88 3260 6700 Colgan 1450 1525 1120 9434.16 15661.08 3235 6600 Mahaney- Colgan 1450 1525 1060 253738.8 310157.28 2530 6100 Weir 1450 1525 600 44.64 84.24 1350 2500 Klinko 1450 1525 1160 189056.16 207964.8 4370 4900 Indian Ft Road 1525 1550 1000 53335.44 80625.96 x x 6935 7700 Parker Farm 1525 1550 1060 37913.76 53015.04 9140 10000 Carman 1550 1600 1220 20454.84 25213.68 10585 11500 Locke Fort 1585 1600 60 6926.76 12824.64 12840 1600 Genoa Fort 1600 1620 860 279.72 539.28 x 6100 9000 East Genoa 1600 1620 840 4418.64 5710.68 x 6585 8500 Myers Fort 1620 1640 1060 29246.76 47332.44 8385 7800 Garrett 1640 1650 1020 9259.56 22988.16 6565 8300 St. Stephen 1650 1680 440 180686.88 225630.72 680 300 St. Rene 1650 1680 430 10866.24 25360.92 10210 400 St. Joseph 1670 1710 860 166526.64 219877.92 4565 6800 Cranebrook 1670 1710 820 13480.92 26621.64 6955 4500 Young Farm 1670 1710 840 40465.8 40517.28 x 2600 5600

Soil drainage at location Highest Highest (4=well; Soil productivity productivity 3=mod well; productivity soil within soil within 2=somewhat Highest soil Highest soil at location 1km 2km poorly; drainage Drainage Cayuga Site Name (bu/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) 1=poorly) within 1km within 2km Landon 110 110 110 4 4 4 Colgan 110 110 110 4 4 4 Mahaney-Colgan 110 110 110 4 4 4 Weir 110 110 110 4 4 4 Klinko 110 110 110 4 4 4 Indian Fort Road 100 110 110 4 4 4 Parker Farm 110 110 110 4 4 4 Carman 110 110 110 4 4 4 Locke Fort 85 100 100 3 4 4 Genoa Fort 100 110 110 4 4 4 East Genoa 110 110 110 4 4 4 Myers Fort 110 110 110 4 4 4 Garrett 110 110 110 4 4 4 St. Stephen 110 110 110 4 4 4 St. Rene 110 4 St. Joseph 110 110 110 4 4 4 Cranebrook 110 110 110 4 4 4 Young Farm 110 110 110 4 4 4

402

Best hardwood growth Lowest frost Best within 1km Best hardwood Frost action action hardwood (1=very growth within at location within 1km Lowest frost growth at poor; 2km (1=very poor; (2=med; (1=low; action Cayuga Site Name location 4=Good) 4=Good) 3=high) 3=high) within 2km Landon 4 4 4 2 2 2 Colgan 4 4 4 2 2 2 Mahaney-Colgan 4 4 4 2 2 2 Weir 4 4 4 2 2 2 Klinko 4 4 4 2 2 2 Indian Fort Road 3 4 4 2 2 2 Parker Farm 4 4 4 2 2 2 Carman 4 4 4 2 2 2 Locke Fort 3 3 3 2 2 2 Genoa Fort 3 4 4 2 2 2 East Genoa 4 4 4 2 2 2 Myers Fort 4 4 4 2 2 2 Garrett 4 4 4 2 2 2 St. Stephen 4 4 4 2 2 2 St. Rene 4 2 St. Joseph 4 4 4 2 2 2 Cranebrook 4 4 4 2 2 2 Young Farm 4 4 4 2 2 2

Within Within 2km, 2km, Within percentage percentage Within Within Within 2km, of of 2km, 2km, 2km, percentage moderately somewhat percentage percentage percentage Within 2km, of well- well poorly of poorly of 110 of 100 percentage of drained drained drained drained bu/acre bu/acre moderate frost Cayuga Site Name soil soil soil soil land land action Landon 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Colgan 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Mahaney-Colgan 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Weir 56 0 44 0 56 0 56 Klinko 77 23 0 0 77 0 100 Indian Fort Road 100 0 0 0 45 55 100 Parker Farm 100 0 0 0 80 20 100 Carman 85 15 0 0 85 0 100 Locke Fort 42 58 0 0 0 42 100 Genoa Fort 100 0 0 0 62 38 100 East Genoa 100 0 0 0 68 32 100 Myers Fort 100 0 0 0 82 18 100 Garrett 100 0 0 0 77 23 100 St. Stephen 48 NA NA NA 48 0 48 St. Rene <1 NA NA NA <1 0 <1 St. Joseph 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Cranebrook 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 Young Farm 100 0 0 0 100 0 100

403

Majority slope Average aspect in catchment in catchment (1=0-4%; 2=4- (SE:112-158; Soil texture at Distance to Slope at 8%; 3=8-15%; S:158-203; Cayuga Site Name location loamy soil location (mean) 4>15%) SW:203-248) Landon FL 0 4.7 1 203.3 Colgan FL 0 1.4 1 165.6 Mahaney-Colgan FL 0 0.6 1 178.0 Weir FL 0 8.7 1 213.2 Klinko FL 0 1.3 1 88.1 Indian Fort Road LSk 0 10.7 1 174.6 Parker Farm FL 0 3.5 1 204.0 Carman FL 0 5.5 1 235.0 Locke Fort CL 0 10.5 3 146.5 Genoa Fort LSk 0 5.6 1 174.0 East Genoa LSk 0 11.7 1 210.1 Myers Fort FL 0 10 1 228.2 Garrett FL 0 12.7 1 160.6 St. Stephen FL 0 3.6 1 171.3 St. Rene 1600 6.5 1 183.2 St. Joseph FL 0 1.8 1 208.6 Cranebrook FL 0 2.8 1 191.1 Young Farm FL 0 20.6 1 234.4

Distance to well-drained Distance to good Distance to moderate Cayuga Site Name soil hardwood growth frost action Landon 0 0 0 Colgan 0 0 0 Mahaney-Colgan 0 0 0 Weir 0 0 0 Klinko 0 0 0 Indian Fort Road 0 600 0 Parker Farm 0 0 0 Carman 0 0 0 Locke Fort 220 1800 0 Genoa Fort 0 140 0 East Genoa 0 0 0 Myers Fort 0 0 0 Garrett 0 0 0 St. Stephen 0 0 0 St. Rene 1600 1200 1200 St. Joseph 0 0 0 Cranebrook 0 0 0 Young Farm 0 0 0

404

Highest Highest productivi Distance productivity ty soil from Distance Soil soil within within Elevation Viewshed overland from productivity 1km 2km Cayuga Random Point (ft) size trail waterway at location (bu/acre) (bu/acre) random point 1 1010 2127841.2 5115 1400 110 110 110 random point 2 390 2526.84 10,145 4000 100 110 110 random point 3 430 9434.52 11,670 1800 110 110 110 random point 4 1410 398609.64 11,250 4000 110 110 110 random point 5 1180 274224.96 10,375 1700 110 110 110 random point 6 530 1965.24 1550 8300 85 110 110 random point 7 930 407444.04 3410 4400 110 110 110 random point 8 380 5725.44 9045 1100 NA 100 110 random point 9 1070 24662.52 5490 8700 110 110 110 random point 10 1380 90918.36 7040 9000 85 85 85 random point 11 520 959.4 175 3200 100 110 110 random point 12 370 80191.08 890 200 90 110 110 random point 13 920 329013.36 875 4300 110 110 110 random point 14 370 13335.84 695 1400 105 105 105 random point 15 540 80547.84 1600 3300 85 90 90 random point 16 1510 274208.04 6915 9700 85 85 85 random point 17 1030 11085.84 7555 1300 110 110 110

Soil drainage site is Best Best located in hardwood hardwood (4=well; growth growth 3=mod well; Best within 1km within 2km 2=somewhat Highest soil Highest soil hardwood (1=very (1=very Cayuga Random poorly; drainage within Drainage growth site poor; poor; Point 1=poorly) 1km within 2km is located in 4=good) 4=good) random point 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 2 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 6 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 8 NA 2 4 NA 4 4 random point 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 random point 11 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 12 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 13 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 14 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 15 2 2 2 4 4 4 random point 16 3 3 3 3 3 3 random point 17 4 4 4 4 4 4

405

Frost action at location Lowest frost Lowest frost Cayuga Random (2=med; action within 1km action Point 3=high) (1=low; 3=high) within 2km random point 1 2 2 2 random point 2 2 2 2 random point 3 2 2 2 random point 4 2 2 2 random point 5 2 2 2 random point 6 3 2 2 random point 7 2 2 2 random point 8 NA 3 2 random point 9 2 2 2 random point 10 2 2 2 random point 11 2 2 2 random point 12 3 2 2 random point 13 2 2 2 random point 14 2 2 2 random point 15 3 3 3 random point 16 2 2 2 random point 17 2 2 2

Majority Average slope in aspect in catchment catchment Slope at (1=0-4%; (SE:112-158; Soil texture at Distance to loamy location 2=4-8%; 3=8- S:158-203; Cayuga Random Point location soil (mean) 15%; 4>15%) SW:203-248) random point 1 FL 0 3.8 1 232.3 random point 2 FL 0 0.2 1 128.7 random point 3 LSk 0 0.1 1 193.1 random point 4 FL 0 3.4 1 187.8 random point 5 FL 0 3.1 1 205.9 random point 6 FL 0 11.2 2 127.3 random point 7 FL 0 1.3 1 187.7 random point 8 FL 0 1.3 1 175.1 random point 9 1300 0.2 1 149.2 random point 10 FL 0 4 1 170.8 random point 11 CL 0 2.1 1 97.0 random point 12 LSk 0 3.6 1 187.7 random point 13 F 500 1.2 1 120.8 random point 14 FL 0 2.8 1 254.0 random point 15 LSk 0 1.2 1 165.3 random point 16 FL 0 3.8 1 147.4 random point 17 CL 0 10.5 1 103.0

406

Distance to well- Distance to good hardwood Distance to moderate Cayuga Random Point drained soil growth frost action random point 1 40 30 0 random point 2 0 0 0 random point 3 0 250 0 random point 4 0 0 0 random point 5 0 0 0 random point 6 0 0 0 random point 7 40 0 400 random point 8 0 0 0 random point 9 1400 550 1300 random point 10 0 0 0 random point 11 3300 3300 0 random point 12 0 125 0 random point 13 500 0 500 random point 14 0 0 0 random point 15 0 490 0 random point 16 10,000 0 5600 random point 17 2500 2500 0

407

Distan ce from Distance Largest Total Restricte overla from Seneca Site Elevation viewshed Viewshed Palisa d nd waterwa Name Start End (ft) size (ha) Size (ha) de Location trail y Richmond Mills 1540 1560 980 8643.96 12889.80 x 2960 4200 Adams 1575 1590 1000 6625.80 13902.48 x 0 5600 Johnston 1575 1590 980 7697.52 12015.72 1730 4900 Brisbane 1590 1605 980 18809.28 24218.28 2990 6000 Dutch Hollow 1605 1620 900 8802.72 14155.92 660 6700 Fugle 1605 1620 960 51933.24 81985.32 3000 3400 Lima 1620 1640 820 18637.56 23490.36 880 4300 Bosley Mills 1620 1640 840 10240.20 13582.44 x x 2420 2600 Power House 1640 1655 730 4190.40 6246.36 3385 2800 Menzis 1640 1655 760 47.16 97.92 2890 2200 Gandachioragou 1655 1675 660 5151.24 10249.92 x 5420 1900 Totiakton 1675 1687 640 3772.80 8275.68 o 8480 100 Kient-he 1675 1687 750 7717.68 19382.76 x 4420 5300 Onaghee 1687 1710 790 44114.76 47861.28 2300 1400 Belcher 1540 1560 830 21689.28 32832.36 1360 300 Culbertson 1570 1585 1070 10732.32 52380.36 0 3800 Reed 1570 1585 1050 35868.96 43726.68 1760 4400 Tram 1580 1595 1050 41424.84 62439.12 x 825 5000 Cameron 1595 1610 960 16533.00 44420.04 x 1760 6100 Factory Hollow 1610 1625 860 8077.32 16475.76 x 250 250 Cornish 1625 1645 890 21236.40 26807.40 x x 3290 2400 Warren 1625 1645 720 605.16 1560.60 2420 0 Steele 1645 1660 820 15456.60 35312.04 375 1700 Gandagaro 1660 1675 720 268.20 516.60 x 0 300 Wheeler Station 1660 1680 840 7422.12 8753.40 1590 100 Ganondagan 1675 1687 800 593552.52 598863.60 o 660 3400 Cherry Street 1680 1687 800 1806696.36 2516230.08 o 1860 4200 Beal 1680 1687 750 28217.52 34457.76 o 2225 4800 Kanedesaga 1687 1710 700 278003.16 345459.60 2430 2000

408

Soil drainage at location Highest Highest (4=well; Soil productivity productivity 3=mod well; productivity soil within soil within 2=somewhat Highest soil Highest soil at location 1km 2km poorly; drainage Drainage Seneca Site Name (bu/acre) (bu/acre) (bu/acre) 1=poorly) within 1km within 2km Richmond Mills 85 90 110 2 3 4 Adams 85 110 110 2 4 4 Johnston 110 110 110 4 4 4 Brisbane 85 110 110 2 4 4 Dutch Hollow 110 110 110 4 4 4 Fugle 110 110 110 4 4 4 Lima 110 110 110 4 4 4 Bosley Mills 85 110 110 2 4 4 Power House 110 110 110 4 4 4 Menzis 110 110 110 4 4 4 Gandachioragou 105 110 110 3 4 4 Totiakton 100 100 110 4 4 4 Kient-he 110 110 110 4 4 4 Onaghee 110 110 110 4 4 4 Belcher 90 90 90 2 2 2 Culbertson 110 110 110 4 4 4 Reed 90 110 110 2 4 4 Tram 110 110 110 4 4 4 Cameron 85 110 110 2 4 4 Factory Hollow 90 90 90 2 2 2 Cornish 90 90 90 2 2 2 Warren 90 90 110 2 2 4 Steele 110 110 110 4 4 4 Gandagaro 90 90 110 2 2 4 Wheeler Station 110 110 110 4 4 4 Ganondagan 105 105 105 4 4 4 Cherry Street 90 110 110 2 4 4 Beal 90 110 110 2 4 4 Kanedesaga 110 110 110 4 4 4

409

Best hardwood growth Lowest frost Best within 1km Best hardwood Frost action action hardwood (1=very growth within at location within 1km Lowest frost growth at poor; 2km (1=very poor; (2=med; (1=low; action Seneca Site Name location 4=Good) 4=Good) 3=high) 3=high) within 2km Richmond Mills 4 4 4 3 2 2 Adams 4 4 4 3 2 2 Johnston 4 4 4 2 2 2 Brisbane 4 4 4 3 2 2 Dutch Hollow 4 4 4 2 2 2 Fugle 4 4 4 2 2 2 Lima 4 4 4 2 2 2 Bosley Mills 4 4 4 3 2 2 Power House 4 4 4 2 2 2 Menzis 4 4 4 2 2 2 Gandachioragou 4 4 4 2 2 2 Totiakton 3 3 4 2 2 2 Kient-he 4 4 4 2 2 2 Onaghee 4 4 4 2 2 2 Belcher 4 4 4 3 3 3 Culbertson 4 4 4 2 2 2 Reed 4 4 4 3 2 2 Tram 4 4 4 2 2 2 Cameron 4 4 4 3 2 2 Factory Hollow 4 4 4 3 3 2 Cornish 4 4 4 3 3 3 Warren 4 4 4 3 3 2 Steele 4 4 4 2 2 2 Gandagaro 4 4 4 3 3 2 Wheeler Station 4 4 4 2 2 2 Ganondagan 4 4 4 2 2 2 Cherry Street 4 4 4 3 2 2 Beal 4 4 4 3 2 2 Kanedesaga 4 4 4 2 2 2

410

Within Within 2km, 2km, Within percentage percentage Within Within Within 2km, of of 2km, 2km, 2km, percentage Within 2km, moderately somewhat percentage percentage percentage of percentage well poorly of poorly of 110 of 100 moderate of well- drained drained drained bu/acre bu/acre frost Seneca Site Name drained soil soil soil soil land land action Richmond Mills 3 37 60 0 3 0 40 Adams 63 0 37 0 63 0 63 Johnston 83 0 17 0 83 0 83 Brisbane 59 0 41 0 59 0 59 Dutch Hollow 97 0 0 0 97 0 97 Fugle 67 0 9 0 67 0 67 Lima 61 0 39 0 61 0 61 Bosley Mills 46 0 54 0 46 0 46 Power House 85 8 7 0 86 8 86 Menzis 85 0 15 0 85 1 85 Gandachioragou 65 35 0 0 55 45 100 Totiakton 100 0 0 0 20 80 100 Kient-he 57 43 0 0 57 43 100 Onaghee 59 0 41 0 59 0 59 Belcher 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 Culbertson 79 0 21 0 79 0 79 Reed 32 6 62 0 32 0 32 Tram 69 0 31 0 69 0 69 Cameron 48 0 52 0 48 0 48 Factory Hollow 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Cornish 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Warren 7 0 93 0 7 0 7 Steele 72 0 28 0 72 0 72 Gandagaro 20 0 80 0 20 0 20 Wheeler Station 71 0 29 0 71 0 71 Ganondagan 85 0 15 0 0 85 85 Cherry Street 46 0 54 0 21 37 46 Beal 66 0 34 0 23 43 66 Kanedesaga 76 0 24 0 66 10 76

411

Majority slope Average aspect in catchment in catchment Slope at (1=0-4%; 2=4- (SE:112-158; Soil texture at Distance to location 8%; 3=8-15%; S:158-203; Seneca Site Name location loamy soil (mean) 4>15%) SW:203-248) Richmond Mills CL 0 11.9 2 169.3 Adams FL 0 2.7 1 181.1 Johnston FL 0 4.9 1 167.4 Brisbane FL 0 4.5 1 194.3 Dutch Hollow FL 0 5.1 1 199.8 Fugle FL 0 5.4 1 191.1 Lima FL 0 8.0 1 142.7 Bosley Mills FL 0 9.3 1 195.9 Power House FL 0 2.5 1 161.8 Menzis FL 0 3.3 1 203.0 Gandachioragou FL 0 2.3 1 163.2 Totiakton LSk 0 3.7 1 189.5 Kient-he FL 0 8.3 1 197.9 Onaghee FL 0 1.6 1 232.8 Belcher F 2000 6.4 1 192.6 Culbertson FL 0 2.4 1 157.4 Reed F 400 3.8 1 169.3 Tram FL 0 5.5 1 172.7 Cameron FL 0 4.8 1 165.5 Factory Hollow F 450 6.3 1 212.1 Cornish F 3300 10.5 1 192.2 Warren F 320 2.8 1 190.6 Steele FL 0 3.3 1 189.8 Gandagaro F 500 9.3 1 169.7 Wheeler Station FL 0 1.9 1 192.2 Ganondagan CL 0 5.2 1 165.5 Cherry Street F 400 3.8 1 131.3 Beal F 80 2.6 1 231.1 Kanedesaga FL 0 2.9 1 113.0

412

Distance to well-drained Distance to good Distance to moderate Seneca Site Name soil hardwood growth frost action Richmond Mills 1800 0 0 Adams 350 0 360 Johnston 0 0 0 Brisbane 50 0 30 Dutch Hollow 0 0 0 Fugle 0 0 0 Lima 0 0 0 Bosley Mills 290 0 300 Power House 0 0 0 Menzis 0 0 0 Gandachioragou 40 0 0 Totiakton 0 1000 0 Kient-he 0 0 0 Onaghee 0 0 0 Belcher 2000 0 2000 Culbertson 0 0 0 Reed 400 0 500 Tram 0 0 0 Cameron 460 0 400 Factory Hollow 1600 0 1600 Cornish 3300 0 3300 Warren 1300 0 1300 Steele 0 0 0 Gandagaro 1000 0 1200 Wheeler Station 0 0 0 Ganondagan 0 0 0 Cherry Street 400 0 400 Beal 80 0 80 Kanedesaga 0 0 0

413

Highest Highest Distance productivity productivity from Distance Soil soil within soil within Elevation Viewshed trade from productivity 1km 2km Seneca Random Point (ft) size route waterway at location (bu/acre) (bu/acre) random point 1 885 2161.80 9885 890 105 110 110 random point 34 945 19,316.88 3115 2000 90 90 90 random point 63 823 21,329.28 60 4300 110 110 110 random point 77 551 686.52 6125 100 100 110 110 random point 8 610 987.84 4925 1500 110 110 110 random point 35 951 2206.80 3585 1800 110 110 110 random point 24 722 3697.92 4420 3800 105 105 110 random point 67 886 270,304.92 5020 5250 90 110 110 random point 89 1706 6192.36 3615 1100 85 110 110 random point 71 945 4561.56 590 5800 85 110 110 random point 90 672 694,537.56 4680 3500 105 105 110 random point 41 935 12,362.76 1995 3900 85 85 110 random point 87 935 75,331.08 1990 1400 110 110 110 random point 48 951 12,355.92 860 2300 110 110 110 random point 43 672 52,337.16 7225 900 110 110 110 random point 88 836 75,843.72 5515 7100 110 110 110 random point 80 886 7701.48 4650 6100 110 110 110 random point 65 853 20,988.72 3920 1900 85 110 110 random point 3 869 20,207.16 270 4150 110 110 110 random point 58 672 3713.76 8995 3500 100 110 110 random point 83 918 3001.68 11035 1000 105 110 110 random point 73 656 708.48 300 1300 105 110 110 random point 23 935 22,420.08 6595 3100 85 85 110 random point 16 755 17,872.20 815 4000 85 85 85 random point 86 656 31,051.44 6070 2400 90 100 110 random point 6 788 21,501.72 1935 2700 110 110 110 random point 74 597 10,460.88 1075 2500 100 120 120 random point 12 787 816.12 2115 5300 110 110 110 random point 21 682 815,974.92 2860 1800 105 110 110

414

Soil drainage Best Best site is located hardwood hardwood in (4=well; growth growth 3=mod well; Best within 1km within 2km 2=somewhat Highest soil Highest soil hardwood (1=very (1=very Seneca Random poorly; drainage within Drainage growth site poor; poor; Point 1=poorly) 1km within 2km is located in 4=good) 4=good) random point 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 34 2 2 2 4 4 4 random point 63 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 77 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 35 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 24 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 67 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 89 3 3 3 3 4 4 random point 71 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 90 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 41 2 2 4 4 4 4 random point 87 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 48 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 43 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 88 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 80 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 65 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 58 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 83 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 73 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 23 2 2 4 4 4 4 random point 16 2 2 2 4 4 4 random point 86 2 4 4 4 4 4 random point 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 74 4 4 4 3 4 4 random point 12 4 4 4 4 4 4 random point 21 4 4 4 4 4 4

415

Frost action at location Lowest frost action Lowest frost Seneca Random (2=med; within 1km (1=low; action Point 3=high) 3=high) within 2km random point 1 2 2 2 random point 34 3 3 3 random point 63 2 2 2 random point 77 2 2 2 random point 8 2 2 2 random point 35 2 2 2 random point 24 2 2 2 random point 67 3 2 2 random point 89 2 2 2 random point 71 3 2 2 random point 90 2 2 2 random point 41 3 3 2 random point 87 2 2 2 random point 48 2 2 2 random point 43 2 2 2 random point 88 2 2 2 random point 80 2 2 2 random point 65 3 2 2 random point 3 3 2 2 random point 58 2 2 2 random point 83 2 2 2 random point 73 2 2 2 random point 23 3 3 3 random point 16 3 3 2 random point 86 3 2 2 random point 6 2 2 2 random point 74 2 2 2 random point 12 2 2 2 random point 21 2 2 2

416

Average Majority slope aspect in in catchment catchment Slope at (1=0-4%; 2=4- (SE:112-158; Soil texture at location 8%; 3=8-15%; S:158-203; Seneca Random Point location Distance to loamy soil (mean) 4>15%) SW:203-248) random point 1 CL 0 6.8 1 203.2 random point 34 FL 0 1.4 1 155.8 random point 63 FL 0 1.2 1 219.3 random point 77 FL 0 4.4 1 211.7 random point 8 FL 0 2.9 1 173.6 random point 35 FL 0 1.8 1 184.1 random point 24 CL 0 1.0 1 163.0 random point 67 FL 0 3.7 1 236.5 random point 89 CL 0 4.0 1 196.6 random point 71 F 336 1.3 1 156.8 random point 90 FL 0 6.6 1 199.1 random point 41 FL 0 6.8 1 168.0 random point 87 FLS 0 5.5 1 182.1 random point 48 FL 0 5.5 1 186.0 random point 43 LSk 0 8.7 1 178.8 random point 88 FL 0 1.5 1 236.7 random point 80 FL 0 1.0 1 233.6 random point 65 F 350 12.2 1 188.6 random point 3 FL 0 1.7 1 179.1 random point 58 CL 0 1.8 1 158.6 random point 83 LSk 0 5.0 1 211.8 random point 73 LSk 0 3.9 1 188.2 random point 23 FL 0 0.2 1 214.3 random point 16 CL 0 1.6 1 159.3 random point 86 F 180 0.9 1 171.0 random point 6 FL 0 2.5 1 178.7 random point 74 FL 0 0.6 1 137.8 random point 12 CL 0 5.8 4 183.8 random point 21 CL 0 1.0 1 214.5

417

Distance to well- Distance to good hardwood Distance to moderate Seneca Random Point drained soil growth frost action random point 1 0 0 0 random point 34 0 0 0 random point 63 0 0 0 random point 77 0 0 0 random point 8 0 0 0 random point 35 2400 0 2400 random point 24 0 0 0 random point 67 1200 0 1300 random point 89 0 0 0 random point 71 2450 0 2500 random point 90 0 0 0 random point 41 1200 0 1250 random point 87 0 1000 0 random point 48 0 0 0 random point 43 0 0 0 random point 88 0 0 0 random point 80 200 0 200 random point 65 320 0 320 random point 3 370 0 360 random point 58 0 0 0 random point 83 0 280 0 random point 73 0 330 0 random point 23 0 0 0 random point 16 0 0 0 random point 86 150 0 180 random point 6 0 0 0 random point 74 0 0 0 random point 12 4500 780 0 random point 21 0 0 0

418 Appendix C: Viewshed Results

This appendix includes the visibility matrices for the 145 sites used in the study.

These are on the first six pages and indicate the settlements visible from each site. These are followed by the maximum unbroken line-of-sight in the cardinal directions on the next six pages. Finally, the results of the analysis of percentage of land visible within 500 meters, 1000 meters, and 1500 meters of each site are on the final six pages.

Mohawk visibility matrix

419 Oneida visibility matrix

420 Onondaga visibility matrix

421 Cayuga visibility matrix

422

Eastern Seneca visibility matrix

423 Western Seneca visibility matrix

424 Total Seneca visibility matrix

425 Mohawk unbroken visibility

426 Oneida unbroken visibility

427 Onondaga unbroken visibility

428 Cayuga unbroken visibility

429 Eastern Seneca unbroken visibility

430 Western Seneca unbroken visibility

431 Mohawk field-of-view

432 Oneida field-of-view

433 Onondaga field-of-view

434 Cayuga field-of-view

435 Eastern Seneca field-of-view

436 Western Seneca field-of-view

437

Appendix D: Discriminant Function Results

This appendix includes the discriminant function analyses structure matrices for each of the Haudenosaunee nations.

Structure Matrix

Function

1

Majority slope in catchment (1=0-4%; 2=4-8%; 3=8-15%; .822 4>15%)

Slope at location (mean) -.198 LargestViewshed Size .055

Distance waterway .048

Average aspect in catchment (SE:112-158; S:158-203; .041 SW:203-248)

Distance to well-drained soil .035

Distance to loamy soil -.031 Distance to good hardwood -.026 growth

Frost Location .021 Drainage location -.020

Distance trade route .011

Distance to medium frost .007 action

Harwood location .003

Discriminant function analysis results for Mohawk sites. Elevation was not analyzed because there were several sites without elevation information. It was not a significant discriminating variable for the sites with elevation information.

438

Structure Matrix

Function 1

Elevation -.303 Slope at location (mean) .269

Average aspect in catchment (SE:112-158; S:158-203; .264 SW:203-248) Frost Location -.237

Drainage location .225 Distance to medium frost -.183 action

Harwood location -.178 LargestViewshed Size -.177 Distance to good hardwood .173 growth

Majority slope in catchment (1=0-4%; 2=4-8%; 3=8-15%; -.169 4>15%)

Distance waterway -.105

Distance to loamy soil -.080 Distance trade route -.079

Distance to well-drained soil .035

Discriminant function analysis results for Oneida sites.

439

Structure Matrix

Function 1

Distance to good hardwood .423 growth Average aspect in catchment

(SE:112-158; S:158-203; .402

SW:203-248) Distance trade route .382

Slope at location (mean) .281

Majority slope in catchment (1=0-4%; 2=4-8%; 3=8-15%; .260 4>15%)

Elevation .206

Drainage location -.202 Harwood location -.181

LargestViewshed Size .157 Distance to well-drained soil .152 Distance waterway .131

Discriminant function analysis results for Onondaga sites. Frost action at the site location and distance to moderate frost action are not in the results because every site and random point were located on moderate frost action land.

440

Structure Matrix

Function 1

Drainage location .331 Slope at location (mean) .302

Frost Location -.260 Distance to well-drained soil -.218 Distance waterway .218

LargestViewshed Size -.216 Average aspect in catchment (SE:112-158; S:158-203; .188 SW:203-248)

Harwood location .172 Distance to medium frost -.163 action

Distance to loamy soil -.140 Distance to good hardwood -.138 growth

Majority slope in catchment (1=0-4%; 2=4-8%; 3=8-15%; .055 4>15%) Distance trade route .047

Elevation .038

Discriminant function analysis results for Cayuga sites.

441

Structure Matrix

Function 1

Distance trade route .574 Slope at location (mean) -.440

Distance to loamy soil -.354 Harwood location -.288 Drainage location .283

Frost Location -.221 Majority slope in catchment (1=0-4%; 2=4-8%; 3=8-15%; .205 4>15%)

Average aspect in catchment (SE:112-158; S:158-203; .185 SW:203-248)

Distance to good hardwood .175 growth Distance to medium frost -.096 action

Elevation -.090

LargestViewshed Size -.082 Distance waterway -.067

Distance to well-drained soil .056

Discriminant function analysis results for Seneca sites.

442

Appendix E: Cox Proportional Hazards Analysis Results

This appendix includes the results of all alternate Cox proportional hazards models created and examined.

Environmental variables only N=124 Sig.=0.344 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distance to loamy soil .001 .000 1.483 1 .223 1.001

Slopeat location mean .006 .015 .145 1 .703 1.006

Majority slope 1 .300 .340 .777 1 .378 1.350

Majority slope 2 .688 .646 1.136 1 .287 1.991

Majority slope 3 .040 .542 .006 1 .941 1.041

Average aspect in catchment -.001 .002 .201 1 .654 .999

Percentage of good -.006 .004 1.857 1 .173 .994 hardwood growth within 2km

Percent Mod Frost Action -.003 .005 .491 1 .483 .997 2km

Percent Somewhat Poorly .018 .010 3.654 1 .056 1.019 Drained soil 2km

Percent Mod Drainage 2km .015 .012 1.664 1 .197 1.015

Percent Well-Drained 2km .008 .010 .625 1 .429 1.008

Distance to well-drained soil .000 .000 4.304 1 .038 .999

Distance to good hardwood .000 .000 .750 1 .387 1.000

Distance to moderate frost .000 .000 .568 1 .451 1.000 action

443

Environmental variables (no percentage of moderate frost action) N=123 Sig.=0.320 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .001 .000 1.967 1 .161 1.001

Slopeatlocationmean .008 .015 .245 1 .621 1.008

Majorityslope1 .313 .342 .842 1 .359 1.368

Majorityslope2 .809 .627 1.666 1 .197 2.246

Majorityslope3 .053 .543 .010 1 .922 1.054

Averageaspectincatchment .000 .002 .098 1 .754 .999

Distancetowelldrainedsoil .000 .000 4.935 1 .026 .999

Distancetogoodhardwood .000 .000 .961 1 .327 1.000

Distancetomoderatefrostactio .000 .000 .689 1 .407 1.000 n

PercentDrainage2km .006 .010 .364 1 .546 1.006

PercentModDrainage2km .014 .012 1.363 1 .243 1.014

PercentSPoorDrain2km .020 .010 4.275 1 .039 1.020

Percentageofgoodhardwood -.006 .004 2.530 1 .112 .994 growthwithin2km

444

Environmental variables only (distances) N=123 Sig.=0.800 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .937 1 .333 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean .015 .014 1.215 1 .270 1.016

Majorityslope1 .170 .339 .251 1 .616 1.185

Majorityslope2 1.010 .606 2.780 1 .095 2.746

Majorityslope3 .059 .538 .012 1 .912 1.061

Averageaspectincatchment .000 .002 .063 1 .801 .999

Distancetowelldrainedsoil .000 .000 3.039 1 .081 1.000

Distancetogoodhardwood .000 .000 .617 1 .432 1.000

Distancetomoderatefrostactio .000 .000 .009 1 .923 1.000 n

445

Environmental variables only (percentages) N=124 Sig.=0.506 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .090 1 .764 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean -.001 .015 .010 1 .922 .999

Majorityslope1 .264 .337 .616 1 .433 1.302

Majorityslope2 .422 .619 .466 1 .495 1.525

Majorityslope3 .035 .540 .004 1 .949 1.035

Averageaspectincatchment -.001 .002 .262 1 .609 .999

Percentageofgoodhardwood -.004 .004 1.118 1 .290 .996 growthwithin2km

PercentModFrostAction2km -.006 .005 1.863 1 .172 .994

PercentSPoorDrain2km .019 .010 3.472 1 .062 1.019

PercentModDrainage2km .015 .012 1.729 1 .189 1.015

PercentDrainage2km .018 .009 4.016 1 .045 1.018

446

Environmental variables plus elevation N=109 Sig.=0.116 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .512 1 .474 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean -.014 .015 .811 1 .368 .986

Majorityslope1 .366 .349 1.104 1 .293 1.443

Majorityslope2 -.102 1.080 .009 1 .924 .903

Majorityslope3 .144 .547 .069 1 .792 1.155

Averageaspectincatchment .000 .003 .031 1 .860 1.000

Percentageofgoodhardwood -.008 .004 4.007 1 .045 .992 growthwithin2km

PercentModFrostAction2km -.014 .006 6.858 1 .009 .986

PercentSPoorDrain2km .023 .010 4.891 1 .027 1.023

PercentModDrainage2km .025 .012 4.438 1 .035 1.026

PercentDrainage2km .027 .010 7.633 1 .006 1.027

Elevation .000 .001 .106 1 .744 1.000

447

Environmental and sociopolitical factors (Elevation, Viewshed, Distance to trails and waterways) N=109 Sig.=0.088 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .705 1 .401 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean -.007 .015 .227 1 .634 .993

Majorityslope1 .299 .357 .699 1 .403 1.348

Majorityslope2 -.158 1.094 .021 1 .885 .854

Majorityslope3 .032 .548 .003 1 .953 1.033

Averageaspectincatchment .001 .003 .088 1 .767 1.001

Percentageofgoodhardwood -.007 .004 3.090 1 .079 .993 growthwithin2km

PercentModFrostAction2km -.015 .006 6.744 1 .009 .986

PercentSPoorDrain2km .022 .010 4.899 1 .027 1.023

PercentModDrainage2km .028 .012 5.277 1 .022 1.029

PercentDrainage2km .028 .010 7.675 1 .006 1.028

Elevation .000 .001 .044 1 .833 1.000

TotalViewshedSize .000 .000 2.153 1 .142 1.000

Distancetraderoute .000 .000 .213 1 .644 1.000

Distancewaterway .000 .000 3.311 1 .069 1.000

448

Just environmental factors with population N=102 Sig.=0.171 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .179 1 .672 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean -.013 .017 .571 1 .450 .987

Majorityslope1 .323 .347 .867 1 .352 1.381

Majorityslope2 .305 .625 .238 1 .626 1.357

Majorityslope3 -.488 .592 .680 1 .409 .614

Averageaspectincatchment -.003 .003 .978 1 .323 .997

Percentageofgoodhardwood -.002 .004 .329 1 .566 .998 growthwithin2km

PercentModFrostAction2km -.008 .005 2.426 1 .119 .992

PercentSPoorDrain2km .049 .030 2.705 1 .100 1.050

PercentModDrainage2km .046 .030 2.406 1 .121 1.047

PercentDrainage2km .050 .029 3.027 1 .082 1.051

PopulationSize .000 .000 5.079 1 .024 1.000

449

Just environmental factors with ln(population) N=102 Sig.=0.173 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .205 1 .651 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean -.014 .017 .738 1 .390 .986

Majorityslope1 .408 .349 1.365 1 .243 1.503

Majorityslope2 .253 .628 .162 1 .688 1.287

Majorityslope3 -.367 .585 .394 1 .530 .693

Averageaspectincatchment -.004 .003 1.816 1 .178 .996

Percentageofgoodhardwood -.002 .004 .380 1 .538 .998 growthwithin2km

PercentModFrostAction2km -.008 .005 2.723 1 .099 .992

PercentSPoorDrain2km .051 .030 2.809 1 .094 1.052

PercentModDrainage2km .050 .031 2.668 1 .102 1.051

PercentDrainage2km .053 .029 3.203 1 .073 1.054

lnPopulation .296 .130 5.200 1 .023 1.344

450

Environmental and Sociopolitical with Population N=87 Sig.=0.022 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .977 1 .323 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean -.023 .018 1.658 1 .198 .977

Majorityslope1 .271 .382 .504 1 .478 1.311

Majorityslope2 -.546 1.098 .247 1 .619 .579

Majorityslope3 -.498 .624 .635 1 .426 .608

Averageaspectincatchment .000 .003 .015 1 .903 1.000

Percentageofgoodhardwood -.008 .004 3.611 1 .057 .992 growthwithin2km

PercentModFrostAction2km -.018 .006 7.722 1 .005 .983

PercentSPoorDrain2km .037 .033 1.276 1 .259 1.038

PercentModDrainage2km .048 .033 2.189 1 .139 1.050

PercentDrainage2km .047 .032 2.154 1 .142 1.048

TotalViewshedSize .000 .000 3.050 1 .081 1.000

Distancetraderoute .000 .000 .699 1 .403 1.000

Distancewaterway .000 .000 3.313 1 .069 1.000

Elevation .001 .001 2.069 1 .150 1.001

PopulationSize .000 .000 2.228 1 .136 1.000

451

Environmental and Sociopolitical with Population (no elevation) N=102 Sig.=0.150 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .182 1 .670 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean -.007 .017 .179 1 .672 .993

Majorityslope1 .160 .374 .183 1 .669 1.174

Majorityslope2 .210 .632 .110 1 .740 1.233

Majorityslope3 -.554 .600 .854 1 .355 .574

Averageaspectincatchment -.002 .003 .429 1 .513 .998

Percentageofgoodhardwood .000 .004 .054 1 .816 .999 growthwithin2km

PercentModFrostAction2km -.005 .005 1.115 1 .291 .995

PercentSPoorDrain2km .044 .029 2.253 1 .133 1.045

PercentModDrainage2km .043 .029 2.222 1 .136 1.044

PercentDrainage2km .045 .028 2.556 1 .110 1.046

TotalViewshedSize .000 .000 1.437 1 .231 1.000

Distancetraderoute .000 .000 .172 1 .678 1.000

Distancewaterway .000 .000 1.086 1 .297 1.000

PopulationSize .000 .000 4.213 1 .040 1.000

452

Environmental and Sociopolitical with ln(population) N=87 Sig.=0.023 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Distancetoloamysoil .000 .000 .984 1 .321 1.000

Slopeatlocationmean -.023 .018 1.691 1 .193 .977

Majorityslope1 .314 .381 .681 1 .409 1.370

Majorityslope2 -.557 1.098 .257 1 .612 .573

Majorityslope3 -.412 .615 .448 1 .503 .662

AverageaspectincatchmentS -.001 .003 .118 1 .732 .999 E112158S158203SW203248

Percentageofgoodhardwood -.008 .004 3.266 1 .071 .992 growthwithin2km

PercentModFrostAction2km -.017 .006 7.036 1 .008 .984

PercentSPoorDrain2km .039 .033 1.391 1 .238 1.040

PercentModDrainage2km .051 .033 2.394 1 .122 1.052

PercentDrainage2km .048 .032 2.289 1 .130 1.049

TotalViewshedSize .000 .000 3.120 1 .077 1.000

Distancetraderoute .000 .000 .876 1 .349 1.000

Distancewaterway .000 .000 3.238 1 .072 1.000

Elevation .001 .001 1.743 1 .187 1.001

lnPopulation .221 .145 2.323 1 .127 1.248

453

Just sociopolitical factors N=110 Sig.=0.195 Variables in the Equation

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

TotalViewshedSize .000 .000 1.198 1 .274 1.000

Distancetraderoute .000 .000 .006 1 .937 1.000

Distancewaterway .000 .000 3.617 1 .057 1.000

Percentagevisiblecontempsit .031 .297 .011 1 .918 1.031 es

Elevation .000 .000 .041 1 .839 1.000

454

Eric E. Jones Vita

DEGREES EARNED 2008 Ph.D. Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University 2004 M.A. Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University 2000 B.A. Anthropology, Hamilton College

GRANTS/FELLOWSHIPS/AWARDS 2007 Robert E. Funk Memorial Archaeology Foundation Grant for Research 2006 Dissertation Research Grant, Research and Graduate Studies Office, Pennsylvania State Univ. 2006 Hill Award for Dissertation Research, Pennsylvania State University Anthropology Department 2004 Hill Award for Pre-Dissertation Research, Pennsylvania State Univ. Anthropology Department 2002 Awarded University Fellowship for graduate study in anthropology, The Pennsylvania State Univ.

JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS n.d. Jones, Eric. Determining Population Trends from Settlement Remains: A Case Study of the Onondaga and Oneida Haudenosaunee, AD 1500-1700. American Antiquity. In revision. 2006 Jones, Eric. Using Viewshed Analysis to Explore Settlement Choice: A Case Study of the Onondaga Iroquois. American Antiquity 71(3):523-538. 2003 G.T. Jones, C. Beck, E.E. Jones, R.E. Hughes, Lithic Source Use and the Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(1):5-38.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE 2008 Anthropology 300: Anthropology, Evolution, and Human Survival, SUNY Cortland 2008 Anthropology 236: American Indian Archaeology, University at Albany 2007 Anthropology 100: Culture, Society, and Biology, University at Albany 2007-8 Anthropology 011: Introduction to North American Archaeology (webcourse), PSU 2005-6 Anthropology 002: Introduction to Archaeology, PSU 2004-5 Anthropology 045: Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, PSU 2004 Anthropology 321W: The Intellectual History of Archaeology, PSU 2004 Anthropology 146: Indians of North America, PSU

PROFESSIONAL PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS 2008 Jones, Eric E. Settlement Ecology of the Haudenosaunee, AD 1500-1700. Poster presented at the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) Meetings, Vancouver, BC. 2007 Jones, Eric E. Population History of the Onondaga and Oneida Iroquois, AD 1500-1700. Poster presented at the SAA Meetings, Austin, TX. 2006 Jones, Eric E. Applying GIS to the Settlement Demography of the Iroquois. Poster presented at the SAA Meetings, San Juan, PR. 2005 Jones, Eric E. Digital Landscapes: Using GIS to Explore Iroquois Village Movements. Presented as a poster at SAA Meetings, Salt Lake City, UT. 2000 Jones, Eric E. Artifact Analysis of Sites in Butte Valley, Nevada for Determination of Residence Patterns Over Time. Poster presented at the SAA meetings, Philadelphia, PA.

DEPARTMENTAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 2004 Vice President of the Anthropology Graduate Student Association, PSU 2003 Teaching Assistant, Oneida Youth Work/Learn Project, Colgate University/Oneida Indian Nation 2000 Volunteer, community outreach program to teach youths about archaeology, Hamilton College

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS Society for American Archaeology New York State Archaeological Council New York State Archaeological Association