Environmental History of the Susquehanna Valley Around the Time of European Contact

Historical and prehistoric archaeology can contribute to an overall understanding of the environmental history of any region. Archaeological excavation often provides direct environmental data in the form of animal and plant remains (such as bones, pollen, seeds) and indirect data through the documentation of land-use patterns (evidence of agricultural and/or horticultural cultivation, hunting and fishing practices, style and extent of architectural constructions, and so on). These data allow archaeologists to study how past cultures and landscapes impacted each other, often leading to unexpected results.

The impacts of Native American habitation are an important component of environmental history, as Europeans moved into a landscape already modified by Native use. The environment encouraged contact between Natives and non-Natives as both groups sought to live in and pass through areas with easy access to fresh water and abundant plant and animal resources. When they came together, the two groups often traded environmental products, whether foodstuffs or animal skins. Environmental resources were modified and soil erosion accelerated as footpaths turned into roads and forests were felled for new villages and agricultural fields. The increased population and the demands of trade with Europe required more efficient hunting practices. Once-plentiful species became rare, while rare and sometimes exotic species moved in to take their place. Furthermore, all of this took place within the context of a major climatic shift known as the Little Ice Age.

Figure 1.

Map showing the extent of the Susquehanna Valley in white. The locations of sites and counties discussed in the text are also identified. (Adapted from Karl Musser, Susquehanna River Watershed, Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Susq_sub_u.png [accessed March 3, 2010].)

The Contact Period (circa 1500–1763) was a time of dramatic environmental and cultural change, and this is exemplified here using the Susquehanna Valley of New York and Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The Native Americans inhabiting this region are now known as the Susquehannock, and history often depicts them as greedy and violent—willing and able to attack anyone from the Chesapeake Bay to the St. Lawrence River. But, does this accurately describe the Susquehannock, or is it merely another dehumanized narrative, where the destruction of a group is justified and explained by its unacceptable behavior? Such narratives of “Indian history” persisted until the early 1970s, when civil rights movements raised a general awareness to this form of turning Native Americans into radically different “others.”¹ Yet many Native histories still await revision. Here, archaeology and environmental history are used to reconsider the Susquehannock as a people struggling to survive in a time of great change. By shifting away from stories of warfare and disease and towards an understanding of daily lives we can create a more humanized past for us all.

Archaeology and Contact-Period Environmental Change

Before contact, Native groups relied on a combination of agriculture, hunting, gathering, and fishing to provide them with food and raw materials. Overharvesting of resources was minimized by regular relocation, driven either by a conservation ethic or an economic strategy to minimize effort. In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, village sites appear to have been occupied for a period of ten to twenty-five years before a new location was sought. More frequent migration was discouraged by the positive impacts of harvesting local resources. For example, the collection of firewood and the regular burning of forests added nutrients to the soil, improving agricultural harvest yields and creating new browsing areas for deer.²

The adoption of horticulture and agriculture encouraged Native groups to remain in one place to tend their plants, and the reliability of such food fostered a population increase. According to one estimate, Native populations at contact were ten times their prehorticulture numbers. This can be seen archaeologically in the increased size of villages and in the numbers and types of burials associated with them. But agriculture also increased workloads within a group and increased warfare between groups. Both limited the population explosion. A greater division of labor was needed as some people...