Settlement Patterns 94

The large pit features, which comprise the settlement patterns at the site, most likely represent storage pits that were dug inside of structures, perhaps housing structures. This is suggested by the circular/oval pattern of several of the feature clusters, and as the reports by TMHC concluded, the fact that storage facilities would have been safer and drier within structures. At Location 9, it is likely that clusters 1, 2, 4 and 5 represented house structures, as these clusters all consisted of several pit features of roughly the same size, organized in an oval pattern (Figures 11-12). Cluster 3 was likely outside of the structures, and may have been an activity area, although none of the artifact types were found to significantly cluster there. At Location 15, clusters 1 and 2 are the best evidence for structures due to their overall shapes and sizes, and as determined by the spatial analysis of artifact types, they might represent two different types of structures (Figures 13-14). Cluster 2 was likely used for more domestic activities, such as cooking, food storage, children’s activities, and hide-working, while Cluster 1 could have been used for more spiritual or political purposes, as indicated by the clustering of pipe fragments. Clusters 3, 4 and 5 were likely external activity areas, as concluded in the TMHC report, or smaller structures. The majority of pit features could have been originally used for the storage of dry food resources and then filled with refuse prior to the site being

abandoned.

Unfortunately, while direct cross-mends were possible within feature clusters at Location

15, only inferred cross mends could be made between feature clusters. Two vessels from

Location 15 had inferred mends between clusters 2 and 3 (V15-86-1 and V15-53-1), and another vessel between clusters 1 and 2 (V15-57-1). The remainder of vessels had sherds recovered exclusively from the same feature cluster. At Location 9, no vessels mends were found between feature clusters. Therefore, it is entirely possible the feature clusters

represent separate episodes of occupation, with some vessels simply showing similarities to vessels from other occupations at the site. However, at Location 15 a total of 30 identified vessels, out of a total of 56 from the entire site, were recovered from Cluster 2.

In this case it is possible that the feature clusters do represent the same occupation, with

little evidence of simultaneous occupation (i.e. ceramic mends) due simply to the differing use of space across the site.

The settlement patterns, largely ephemeral in nature with very little evidence for post molds perhaps due to preservation issues or the temporary nature of structures, do seem to indicate that the groups visiting these sites did so during a seasonal round. This is very much in line with the settlement patterns described by Murphy and Ferris (1990) for Western Basin groups (discussed in Chapter 2), and the sites are very similar to other recorded sites to the west, particularly Bruner-Colasanti in Essex County. The Bruner- Colasanti site was also defined by large pit features clustered in circular or oval patterns, with very little evidence of post molds. Although the possible house structure feature

clusters at Bruner-Colasanti each occupied approximately 100 to 150 m2 _{at the}

Silvercreek sites the clusters were much smaller, only measuring roughly 30 to 40 m2 for

Location 9 and between 40 to 80 m2 for Location 15. The Silvercreek sites may have

been occupied by smaller groups, for shorter durations, or do not represent multiple occupations in the same way that larger sites such as Bruner-Colasanti might. Location 15 provides the best evidence for multiple occupations, since it is the larger of the two sites, and has over five times the number of artifacts recovered (Table 1). Although Location 15 was entirely excavated, unlike Location 9, this is still a large discrepancy in artifact density, given that the same number of features (n=49) was found on each site. Location 15 also appears to have several overlapping pit features, further evidence that the location received more continued use over a longer period of time.

Despite the mobile lifestyle of the groups that resided here, pottery was still a large part of the community structure, and in many ways was manufactured in a standardized manner. A mobile lifestyle, heterogeneous ceramics, and informal post-marital patterns have typically been seen as traits that co-vary. The Silvercreek sites indicate that the practice of pot-making, including ideas about how to make a pot, was in fact firmly

rooted in these communities. Particularly at Location 15, the morphology of vessels, and the decorative techniques, tools, and motifs chosen by potters were consistent across vessels, with some variation in the decoration of the neck zone. In terms of paste, potters used about 10 different recipes. This is on par with other sites dated to this time period, such as the Van Besien site, a Glen Meyer village with a large assemblage of pottery. Schumacher (2013:67-68) found that potters at Van Besien used 10 paste recipes, with various pink, white, gold, black and red inclusions, as well as one recipe that contained no temper, similar to the Silvercreek sites. It appears that pottery played a large role in the lives of the Silvercreek inhabitants, despite their mobile lifestyle, which likely still involved a seasonal round based on the somewhat ephemeral nature of the settlement patterns.