Settlements Along the Kinderhook? Kinderhook Creek, NY

This presentation was first given at the Fifth Annual Algonquian People’s Conference, at the New York State Museum in Albany, NY, on 13 March 2004. It was later published in part as "Evidence for Settlements Along the Kinderhook" in the "Mohican Seminar 3: The Journey, an Algonquian Peoples Seminar" It was edited by Shirley W. Dunn and published in Albany, NY by the University of the State of New York, State Education Department in 2009

On July 17, 2003 Judy Harris of the National Park Service, Terry D’Amour, President of the Native American Institute of the Hudson River Valley and myself[1] picked-up 13 boxes of Native and ancient artifacts from the Columbia County Historical Society (CCHS), Kinderhook, NY. These boxes, see figures 1, 2, and 3, were known as the Magee Collection having been assembled by Seymour R. Magee[2], a native of the Kinderhook area of Columbia County, New York. We were unsure of what was in each box, however, we were aware that the collection contained projectile points, hammerstones and other artifacts. The historical society received the

              

         Figure 1, Original Containers of Magee Collection

collection in late 1993 and early 1994 from Michael Laccetti, a friend of the late Mr. Magee. Mr. Laccetti initially surveyed and partially cataloged the collection before turning it over to CCHS.

          

                                          Figure 2, Boxed Artifacts - Gouges[3]

Although the collection remained untouched for many years the CCHS had a desire to catalog and display these artifacts and to use the collection for educational programs for children and adults. Unfortunately this had not been possible for a number of reasons. However, with the recent introduction of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CCHS, the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, National Park Service (NPS), and the Native American Institute (NAI) it became a reality for the three organizations to join forces to work together on projects of interest to the entire group. The Magee collection was the first project attempted under the new MOU. Through the memorandum each member organization would benefit from the study of the collection. The CCHS would have unaccessioned and undocumented artifacts, accessioned, cataloged, documented and prepared for a number of different types of exhibition. The NAI would not only provide their expertise to the project but would benefit from examination and study of the artifacts. This would not only concern the artifact’s cultural and historical significance but also their anthropological and archeological importance. The NPS also benefited from the investigation of the Magee collection. They are interested in Mohicans and other ancient Algonquians living in and around National Park Service land.  In the Kinderhook area they are interested in including Mohican history in the interpretation of the Martin Van Buren Historic Site.

     

                          Figure 3, Magee Collection – Hammerstones

Seymour “Spider” Magee owned property[4] south of the village of Kinderhook. Most of his collection was surface scatter picked up over seven decades of farming, fishing and hiking along the Kinderhook Creek. A large number of the artifacts were unearthed from years of plowing and have scrapes and nicks across them. The general area[5] where the collection was found is south of Kinderhook proper and includes the flood plain where the river has historically meandered, (see figure 4). According to a close friend of “Spider” and a fellow collector this general elevation, below 200 feet, is where a large number of the artifacts were found. This raises a number of questions

 

                    Figure 4, Cross-section of Kinderhook Creek

about how and why the artifacts are located there. Topographical maps of the area demonstrate that the creek meanders a great deal over short periods of time. Figure 5 indicates the creek cuts back large amounts of bank.

                    Figure 5, 1903 - 1933 Topographical Surveys

Maps from the 1903 and 1933 surveys show that the 200 foot elevation has retreated 1000 feet or more and that the creek has meandered almost the same amount in as short a distance. However, the 1980 survey (figure 6) shows a less drastic change over a longer period. This could be attributed to flood controls and patterns of water usage in the last 50 years. Though the changes are less dramatic there is evidence of the creek meandering. For example, a number of ox-bow lakes/ponds have developed. The 200-foot elevation is within the flood level (see figure 7). The creek could conceivably have covered the general area where the artifacts were collected at one time or another. Our team went to a random location along the creek, which had been recently plowed. Within twenty minutes we observed a significant number of lithic scatter over an area roughly the size of a football field including various pieces of projectile points, hammerstones,

                       

                                             Figure 6, 1980 Topographical Survey

                          

                          Figure 7, Flood Stage of Kinderhook Creek - 200-foot elevation

 

knives, and flakes. This test location (see figure 8) was well below the 200-foot elevation and in the area where Kinderhook creek would have meandered over time. 

When reviewing the data from the Magee collection and correlating this to where the collection was found a number of questions arise. Questions such as what do the artifacts of the Magee collection tell us about the area along Kinderhook Creek and does the meandering of the creek have an impact on the quantity and category of the artifacts which were found.  Questions such as these were taken into consideration when analyzing the data from the collection.

      

Figure 8 Typical Landscape along the Kinderhook Creek (photo from 200 foot elevation)

Terry and I worked from mid July to September 2003 at the NPS site examining and cataloging each artifact. Cataloging was done in two phases. During the first phase a general survey and primary classification was accomplished (see figure 9). Each box in the collection was given a number and within each box the artifacts were bagged according to their type and classification (Madison, Projectile Point etc.) after which each bag was numbered. This general classification phase, in some cases, was simply verification of an earlier classification by Mr. Laccetti and in other cases it involved a primary classification. In addition, during this phase pieces of debitage were inspected and in some cases projectile pieces were reviewed and tested for completeness. Verifications and classifications of the artifacts were accomplished using known scholarly texts, journals and other works. Ritchie’s monographs, both text and plates, were used

Figure 9, Examining Artifacts

extensively in this process.[6] The inventory of the collection had a total of 1034 artifacts (Table 1). Of this number 318 pieces or 30% were typed and dated, 22% of the collection was debitage with the rest of the collection being able to be typed but not dated.

The pieces of the collection, which could be dated, were found to be from the early archaic period to late woodland period. These included projectile points, spear points and other related pieces. Examples of point types consist of Lamoka, Jacks Reef, Genesee, Bare Island, and Madison. Other artifacts were scrapers, hammerstones, celts, gouges, pestles, mullers, ulus, knives, blades, and drills. Photographs were taken to document the process along with “test shots” of various artifacts in the collection that would be analyzed later to determine which pieces would be further photographed for projects.

The second phase of the investigation involved a closer inspection of the collection and a further stratification of the artifacts. From reviewing test photos the best representative pieces were selected to be re-photographed, and measured. These pieces would be used in educational programs or put on exhibit, and the photographs used in pamphlets, compact discs, power point presentations, and other publications. Measurements were taken using a dial-caliper (see figure 10), and photography was accomplished through digital recording; weight was not a variable measured.

                   

                  Figure 10, Dial-caliper used for Dimensional Measurements

To insure proper cataloging of the specimens, the dimensions of the artifacts, especially the projectile points, were compared to known dimensions from Ritchie and other sources. Additionally, notes were taken on these pieces concerning surface characteristics (see figures 11 - 13), luster, shine, sharpness of edges, type of chert/flint used, and, where required, the possible uses for non-projectile point artifacts.

                                         Figure 11, Surface Characteristics

  

Figure 12, Plow Damage

   

Figure 13, Edge Sharpness

From the test photographs a number of artifacts were selected for further investigation because of significant attributes, which were desirable for presentation and museum exhibition.   Examples of photographed projectile pieces and other associated artifacts planned for public presentations or publications are shown in figures 14 -21.

            

Figure 14, Gouge and a Close-Up

Figure 15, Jacks Reef Projectile Point

Figure 16, Genesee Projectile Point

            

 Figure 17, Madison Projectile Points

            

          Figure 18, Orient Fishtail Projectile Points

             

       Figure 19, Chopper

 

                                     Figure 20, Bare Island Projectile Points

Figure 21, Ulu (top)

      Figure 22, Ulu  (edge)

     Figure 23, Net Sinker

Further inspection of the various datable artifacts led to a number of observations. It became apparent that there were gaps in the collection during various periods. For example table 1 illustrates that the Paleo-Indian period and the Early Woodland period are completely unrepresented in any datable artifacts and that the number of artifacts found in the Late Archaic and Middle Woodland periods is negligible. It is not surprising that the Late Woodland period has the highest number of points. This is the most recent period and one would expect if Natives were active in this area the number of artifacts would reflect this. What is surprising is that no artifacts were found representing the Early Woodland period. One would expect fewer artifacts numerically but would still expect a representative sample during all periods. The other unusual situation is the large number of points, relatively speaking, found from the middle archaic period. 

      Table 1, Number of Pieces vs. Period - Magee Collection

Figures 4 through 7 and Table 1 reveal a corollary between the various periods and the presence or absence of datable artifacts and the movement of the creek becomes evident. Since Kinderhook Creek has demonstrated, till the present, a propensity to meander across its flood plain over time this process could account for the absence of projectile points. The evidence suggests that the area where the Magee collection was gathered could have been under water during the Early Woodland period. Either the creek had meandered over to that area or the creek was at a flood stage up to the 200-foot elevation.  Further, this could suggest that the Paleo-Indian artifacts may not be found in the area along the river because the location of those settlements may have been washed away as the creek meandered. It is also feasible that during the Paleo-Indian period the settlements may have been further away from the present day location of the creek, which may have been shallower and wider during that period.

The suggestion that the absence of datable points from the Early Woodland and Paleo-Indian periods indicates an absence of Native use, although possible, seems improbable. Of the eight periods represented, three of the other five periods show a relatively high degree of use. Although the collection cannot make a definitive statement of where or when a settlement might have been along the banks of the Kinderhook it does give some strong indications.

The Magee collection is an important window into the area of south of Kinderhook along the creek. It may point to locations and periods in which there were settlements when permitted by the creek’s meandering or flooding.

Table 2

  General Inventory of the Magee Colllection

 Inventoried by Terry D’Amour & E.R.Rugenstein

[1] National Park Service Curatorial Internship (Doctoral Program Union Institute and University) and member Native American Institute of the Hudson River Valley.

[2] May 23, 1908 - July 23, 1992, Kinderhook, Columbia County, New York 12106

[3] All photographs were taken by the author, E. R. Rugenstein. Photos digitally imaged using a Sony MVC-FD83 electronic camera and processed using Color-It version 3.0.5.

[4] Magee owned property south of the village and on Kinderhook creek.

[5] The elevation along the river, where the majority of pieces were found, was given to us by a friend of “Spider’s,” Mr.T.S. Mr.T.S. also indicated that the majority of the artifacts came from the east side of the creek near the Martin Van Buren National Historical Site and on land historically owned by Martin Van Buren.

[6] Fox, Daniel J. Arrowheads of the Central Great Plains: Identification and Value

Guide. Paducah: Collector Books. Schroeder Publishing Co., 2003.

Hothem, Lar. Arrowheads and Projectile Points: Identification and Values. Paducah,

Kentucky: Collector Books, 1983.

Ritchie, William A. "An Introduction to Hudson Valley Prehistory." New York State

Museum and Science Service 367 (1958).

________. "New York Projectile Points: A Typology and Nomenclature." New York

State Museum and Science Service 384 (1971).

________. The Archaeology of New York State. Fleischmanns, New York: Purple

Mountain Press, 1980. Reprint, 1994.

Trigger, Bruce G. Northeast. Vol. 15 Handbook of North American Indians, ed.

    William C. Sturtevant. Washington: Smithsonian Institute, 1978.

---