Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 2042e2048
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
Understanding the built environment at the Seneca Iroquois White Springs Site
using large-scale, multi-instrument archaeogeophysical surveys
Peregrine A. Gerard-Little a, *, Michael B. Rogers b, Kurt A. Jordan a
a
b
Cornell University Department of Anthropology, 261 McGraw Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Ithaca College Department of Physics, 261 Center for Natural Sciences, Ithaca College, 953 Danby Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 21 July 2011
Received in revised form
12 March 2012
Accepted 15 March 2012
A landscape-scale conception of the circa 1688e1715 CE Seneca occupation at the White Springs Site
(NYSM 1952; RMSC Plp-018), located in Geneva, NY, is important for understanding their built environment during a period of residential upheaval. This paper reports on approximately five hectares of
high-resolution, multi-instrument archaeogeophysical surveys. These surveys allowed engagement with
layered, temporal contexts and the gathering of otherwise inaccessible information. In combination with
excavation, surface survey, and historic research, archaeogeophysical techniques provided expanded
access to the site, a settlement size estimate of 1.42e2.75 ha, and tentative evidence for a palisade at the
White Springs Site. The interplay between archaeogeophysics and other techniques was critical to this
undertaking.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Ground-penetrating radar
Cesium magnetometry
Seneca Iroquois
Landscape-scale
Cultural entanglement
Mixed method
1. Introduction
The incorporation of archaeogeophysical survey into investigations at the circa 1688e1715 CE Seneca Iroquois White Springs Site1
has contributed not only to a greater appreciation for the multicomponent nature of the site but has also provided insights about
the Seneca built environment in a way that excavation alone could
not given constraints of scale, cost, and time. Archaeological
investigations, led by Dr. Kurt Jordan of Cornell University during
2007e2011, took place in cooperation with surveys performed by
Ithaca College’s Ground-Based Remote Sensing group, led by
archaeogeophysicist Dr. Michael Rogers. The project seeks to better
understand the nature of the Seneca occupation, even as the site in
its present state has been heavily impacted by a nineteenth century
mansion and subsequent Euro-American construction and landscape modification.2
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.A. Gerard-Little).
1
The White Springs Site is identified as New York State Museum (NYSM) site
number 1952, Rochester Museum and Science Center site Plp-018, and Wray site
number 168.
2
Seneca community participation has been a vital aspect of the project from the
start. Senecas helped determine which sections of the site to excavate and the field
methods used. Cornell University’s American Indian Program has also provided
scholarships and funding that have allowed Native students to work with the
project as students and teaching assistants.
0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.03.011
Landowner-imposed limitations on excavation at White Springs
have precluded the use of invasive large-scale excavation techniques; this means that other methodologies were needed to
expose the patterning and architectural features of the Seneca
settlement. Especially under these conditions, archaeogeophysical
techniques such as magnetometry, ground penetrating radar (or
GPR), and resistivity can augment other forms of investigation. We
use the term archaeogeophysics to highlight the compound nature
of this type of surveydit is not solely geophysical (i.e. using physics
to study the earth), but rather an archaeological tool whose
methodology is heavily informed by archaeological concerns. The
theoretical positions incorporated into both survey design and data
interpretation are crucial to the overall undertaking and the
contributions archaeogeophysics can make to a larger archaeological project. Although archaeogeophysics cannot expose pertinent
features in perfect detail, archaeogeophysical data from White
Springs shows that as one aspect of a broadly-conceived archaeological project these methods have great potential for landscapescale investigations (Kvamme, 2003).
Archaeogeophysical survey in the Northeast encounters signals
produced by glacial soils, post-Columbian metal, Euro-American
plow-based agriculture, modern landscape modification, and
a number of other factors that pose problems for interpreting the
archaeogeophysical signatures of Native sites (see review of
archaeogeophysics on Iroquois sites in Gerard-Little, 2011,
pp. 19e23). Fortunately, both instruments and data processing
P.A. Gerard-Little et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 2042e2048
software have improved significantly in the past 30 years. In
combination with a better awareness of effective surveying
practices and dialogue between archaeologists and archaeogeophysicists, many of these obstacles can be overcome or at
least mitigated (Gaffney and Gater, 2003).
One of the significant questions at White Springs relates to
settlement layout and the possibility of a defensive palisade.
Consideration of the social and cultural context in which White
Springs was constructed contributes to a better understanding of
the choices that Senecas may have made in the process of constructing the town, as well as providing guidelines for archaeogeophysical interpretation. Treating this time period as one of
cultural entanglement (Alexander, 1998, p. 485) within specific
historical conditions allows us to avoid assumptions about architecture and settlement patterning based on linear narratives of
decline or acculturation (Jordan, 2008).
1.1. Site background
Between 1688 and 1715 the White Springs Site was the principal
eastern Seneca Iroquois community. The town was established
during a period of warfare following the destruction of existing
Seneca settlements in 1687 by a French force led by the Marquis de
Denonville. The current archaeological database and documentary
sources suggest that in the aftermath of the Denonville invasion
multiple Seneca communities e consisting of two principal towns
(Ganondagan and Rochester Junction), at least two local satellite
villages (including the Beal and Kirkwood sites), and three Seneca
communities on the north shore of Lake Ontario (the Ganestiquiagon, Teiaiagon, and Quinaouatoua sites)dconsolidated into
two large towns at the White Springs and Snyder-McClure sites
(Jordan, 2010, pp. 98e100; Konrad, 1981; Poulton, 1991; Wray,
1983). Archaeological survey defined the domestic portion of the
circa 1670e1687 Ganondagan site as 3.7 ha in size (Hayes et al.,
1978). Ganondagan was the eastern Seneca principal town that
preceded White Springs; population estimates for the site cluster in
the range of 1850 people (Jones, 2008, p. 371; Jordan, 2008, p. 170).
In 1715, following the non-forced abandonment of White Springs,
the eastern Seneca community moved to the more dispersed New
Ganechstage site complex, which was occupied circa 1715e1754
(Jordan, 2008).
White Springs can be seen as the Seneca response to a specific
set of historical circumstances and difficulties. Locations selected
for future settlements typically were prepared prior to occupation,
easing the transition of the community (Engelbrecht, 2003). The
forced abandonment of communities caused by the French invasion
indicates the relative abruptness and unusual nature of this move
and puts White Springs in a unique position for examining Seneca
reactions to hardship created by colonial interactions. The site is
also noteworthy because it was occupied during an interesting
time in Seneca Iroquois history: a period of entanglement between
the Northern Iroquoians and European colonists and traders
(Alexander, 1998, p. 485), but before the full force of settlercolonialism descended on this region (Harris, 2004; Jordan, 2009;
Silliman, 2005).
The center of the White Springs Site sits atop a long, low
northesouth ridge. Today, vineyards and a manicured lawn (which
appears to have been slightly terraced) occupy the majority of the
site. A spring diverted into an artificial pond sits at the bottom of
the eastern slope. The western side of the property slopes more
gently away from the ridge top. The density of refuse and Senecaera features confirms that the site was nucleated in form (see
Jordan, 2008, p. 175). Nucleated Seneca settlements tended to be
ringed by dense trash middens; cemetery areas were located
slightly farther away from habitation and trash disposal zones
2043
(Graham and Wray, 1985). Together, residential and disposal areas
can be classified as domestic space. At White Springs, Seneca-era
domestic space was bounded to the north, west, and south by
burials whose locations are known from the activity of collectors,
avocational archaeologists, and a variety of construction and
landscaping projects undertaken in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries (Conover, 1880; New York State Legislature, 1909;
Trubowitz, 1976).
Given the historical circumstances of White Springs’ founding,
we predicted that a defensive palisade was quite likely to have been
built at the site. Historical and comparative research suggests the
range of forms that might have been present. Both polygonal and
ovoid palisades are observed at Iroquois sites prior to extensive
interaction with colonists, and while ovoid palisades dominate Late
Woodland period (circa 1000e1300 CE) sites, after the appearance
of a straight-edged, roughly polygonal palisade at the circa
1560e1575 Seneca Adams site (Wray et al., 1987), both forms were
used throughout Iroquoia. Several excavations have been able to
determine that palisades were constructed by twisting pointed
posts into the subsoil (Ritchie and Funk, 1973, p. 303) and large
posts were not buried immediately next to each other but interwoven with smaller branches (Heidenreich, 1971; Keener, 1999;
Ritchie and Funk, 1973). Although the Iroquois architectural
repertoire contained platforms and tower structures built into
palisades (Keener, 1999, p. 783), bastions have not been found at
any pre-1650 Iroquoian sites, which suggests they represent
indigenous adoption of European defensive principles. Bastions
project from fortifications and offer vantage points from which to
protect the lateral palisade walls. They differ from the platforms
integrated into Native palisades in terms of construction methods
and the bastion’s typical location on the corners of a defensive
structure.
Although the full historical and political situation of the
Iroquois in the second half of the seventeenth century is beyond
the scope of this paper, it is salient to note that the Iroquois’
position placed them in political, diplomatic, and military contact
with the French, English, and Dutch. A good example of the
networks of interaction that could have influenced defensive
architecture comes from an unsuccessful 1663 Seneca Iroquois
attack on a polygonal, bastioned Susquehannock fort, now known
as the Strickler site (Thwaites 1959, vol. 48, p. 77e79). The Jesuit
Relations show that one year after the campaign, the Seneca asked
the French for weapons as well as assistance in constructing
flanked palisades of their own (Parmenter, 2010, p. 116; Thwaites
1959, vol. 48, p. 233). The unsuccessful nature of the assault on
the Strickler site seems to have made an impression upon the
Seneca, and they hoped to replicate the benefits of flanked fortifications at their own sites. By the time of White Springs’
construction approximately 20 years later, Senecas certainly were
aware of these types of architectural features and the advantages
they conveyed.
There is no known example of European-style bastions from
excavated or mapped Seneca sites constructed prior to White
Springs, but there certainly are at Huron, Onondaga, and Susquehannock sites (Gerard-Little, 2011, pp. 55e60), and this possibility
should also be considered at White Springs. The sixteenth century
Seneca instance of straight-walled palisades is also an important
consideration, not only because of its form, but also because of its
source in the local Seneca repertoire.
2. Materials and methods
The survey methodology at White Springs was built around 20
by 20 m squares, arranged on a grid system at a 45 angle to the
excavation grid. This alignment was based on the assumption that
2044
P.A. Gerard-Little et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 2042e2048
the Seneca-era features are along or are perpendicular to the site’s
dominant topographic lines that run roughly northesouth. A grid
system oriented at an angle to this ensures that linear features such
as palisade remnants are crossed by transects multiple times, and
thus provides more robust evidence for the existence of a subsurface feature. Multiple instruments are also beneficial because they
provide overlapping lines of evidence that can reveal more about
the character of a feature (Clay, 2001; Kvamme and Ahler, 2007).
Overall, approximately five ha were surveyed at White Springs
making this the largest survey of this resolution in the Northeast.
Additionally, the 2008e2011 excavations in part targeted areas of
interest identified by archaeogeophysical survey, using 1 m by 1 m
test units. To date, 24 m2 of test unit have been placed based on
archaeogeophysical features and further targeted excavation is
planned.
GPR and magnetometry measure different physical and chemical properties that are significant in relation to data collection and
interpretation. GPR uses an antenna to project electromagnetic
pulses into the ground at targeted frequencies; the travel time of
the signal is affected by the dielectric permittivity of the underlying
ground, allowing materials with divergent characteristics to be
distinguished from one another (Conyers and Goodman, 1997). Our
surveys at White Springs used a Geophysical Survey Systems Inc.
SIR 3000 and a 400 MHz antenna, sampling every two cm along
transects spaced half a meter apart. The GPR data was processed
with GPR-Slice 7 and integrated with other data in Golden Software’s Surfer 9.
We used both fluxgate and cesium magnetometers; the 2008
survey at White Springs was conducted with a Geoscan fluxgate
gradiometer and the 2009 and 2010 surveys primarily used
a Geometrics Inc. cesium magnetometer. At the simplest level
magnetometers measure the magnitude of the Earth’s localized
magnetic field in a survey area. Solar activity, geology, iron content
of soils, as well as the smaller-scale effects of anthropogenic
activity, can influence the Earth’s near-surface local magnetic field.
Anthropogenic factors influencing the magnetic signal of an area
include burning, fired materials, presence of ferrous metal, and
differences in the distribution of soil characteristics potentially
created by activities involving fire and agricultural modification of
soils (Aspinall et al., 2008; Scollar et al., 1990). Magnetometer
transect spacing was 25 cm and samples along each transect were
taken at approximately 5 cm intervals. The fluxgate magnetometer
data was first processed with Geoscan’s Geoplot software, while the
cesium magnetometer data was processed in Mag Map 2000. Both
were then processed using Archaeosurveyor, and plotted using
Surfer 9.
3. Results
On the eastern side of the ridge, partway down the slope, a one
hundred meter long northesouth feature appears in both the
magnetometer and GPR data from 2009 (Fig. 1). The faintness of
this signal may be due to differential iron distribution in the soils
(Rogers et al., 2006) related to nineteenth century landscaping
and terracing efforts. There are no known cemeteries to the east
of the site, making this the only dimension of Seneca domestic
space unconstrained by evidence that suggests Seneca burials.
Nine square meters of archaeological test units were placed along
this line in 2009e2011; they revealed shallow soil stains that may
represent large wooden post bases but these features did not
provide definitive evidence for the presence of a Seneca-era
palisade. These units do however place the eastern boundary of
Seneca domestic space in the area of the northesouth linear
archaeogeophysical feature.
Fig. 1. Possible eastern palisade wall as shown in magnetometer data. Linear feature is
indicated by arrows. The total area pictured is 19 survey units, approximately 0.76 ha.
Data collected at 5 cm sampling interval, 25 cm transect spacing.
When the lane to the north of the mansion was graded in 1842
(Conover, 1880, p. 38), human remains and grave goods were
exposed, limiting the possible location of the northern palisade
wall to the south of the current road. The Seneca Nation was aware
of these disturbances and sent a deputation to the property owner
circa 1900 to request that graves not be disturbed further (New
York State Legislature, 1909). This area has been heavily affected
by road and mansion construction and it was decided that
archaeogeophysical survey should focus on areas less likely to be so
disturbed.
On the other side of the property, our 2010 data from both GPR
and cesium magnetometry show a not-quite-straight line in the
northernmost survey unit on the western side of the ridge (Fig. 2).
This area is relatively flat and records show that grading toward
the western edge of the property, also in 1842, exposed Seneca
burials (Conover, 1880, p. 38). One can see that although the
feature looks continuous in the magnetometer data, it appears as
a series of closely-spaced but discrete points in the radar data. If
extended, this western signal passes directly through an area in
the middle of the west lawn disturbed by a twentieth century
metal barn and the signals disappear. Three 1 m by 1 m units
were placed over the feature; excavation demonstrated that it was
in fact a buried (non-live) electrical wire that had not been
recorded on any property map. No significant numbers of Senecaera artifacts were recovered from these units. Eight shovel test
pits at five-meter intervals were dug in an eastward-running
line in order to determine both the level of disturbance in this
area of the lawn and where the concentration of Seneca-era
artifacts increased. Approximately 11 m to the east of the
archaeogeophysically-identified feature, excavation encountered
a large Seneca-era feature (Feature 33) below the plowzone.
Preliminary analysis of the artifacts recovered from the second
level of the shovel test pit and subsequent 1 m by 1 m unit indicates that no Euroamerican-era material culture is present below
the plowzone and that Feature 33 likely represents a substantial
undisturbed Seneca-era midden deposit that indicates the
western boundary of Seneca domestic space.
P.A. Gerard-Little et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 2042e2048
2045
Fig. 2. Western linear feature. Left: GPR, 2 cm sampling interval with 50 cm transect spacing. Right: Cesium magnetometer, 5 cm sampling interval, 25 cm transect spacing. Both
represent the same 20 20 m survey unit.
Determining internal site layout and locating the proposed
southern wall are more problematic, largely because of the
extensive nineteenth and twentieth century modifications that
mask Seneca-era features because of their relatively larger size
and signal strength, at least archaeogeophysically. To the south of
the mansion, GPR and magnetometry exposed the remnants of
a formal garden and traces of what was probably a clay tennis
court (Fig. 3). We have, however, identified three clusters of
features in the magnetometer data and one in the GPR data with
dimensions consistent with historically- and archaeologically-
known longhouses (Fig. 4). Two are 16 m by 5 m, and two are
5 m wide and of uncertain length. These dimensions are roughly
consistent with three-compartment longhouses (Snow, 1994;
Williams-Shuker, 2005). It is significant that the dimensions seem
to be regular across all four of these potential structures, perhaps
reflecting a standard at the site. Limited testing of three of these
feature clusters with six 1 m by 1 m test units did not conclusively
prove they were architectural, but our excavation only provided
a small window into what could be large structures. These
possible longhouse locations are a high priority for future excavation at the site.
4. Discussion
Fig. 3. Tennis court feature. This feature of high relative dielectric permittivity appears
at a depth of 19e19.5 ns and matches the dimensions of a doubles tennis court with
a buffer area around the edges.
Although we found the western side of the property to be
more disturbed than initially suspected, archaeogeophysical data
suggests that there may have been a rectilinear palisade on
the eastern side of the ridge at White Springs. Corners of the
palisade, which could have been curved, exhibited clear angles, or
contained bastions, are not visible in the survey area but this could
be due to extensive disturbance by construction, farming, or
landscaping. Our investigations on the western side of the ridge
speak to the importance of an ongoing dialectical relationship
between archaeogeophysics and excavation methodology, rather
than a single, limited moment of collaboration. In this instance
we were fortunate that excavation could supplement archaeogeophysical information and, along with historic documents,
narrow down the location of the western edge of the White
Springs settlement.
If the “eastern wall” is extrapolated southward into un-surveyed
territory, the southeastern corner should be somewhere within the
modern vineyard. Approximately 0.3 ha of surface survey in the
vineyard allowed areas of high concentration of bone to be mapped,
which likely correlate to zones of trash disposal around the living
space. These distributions are consistent with predicted boundaries
of the site based on archaeogeophysical data (Fig. 5). Another factor
to consider on the east lawn is the presence of the spring. Although
there are examples of Seneca sites with palisades extended to
water sources, such as at the Fort Hill site burned in 1687 (Jordan,
2008, p. 169), there is no archaeogeophysical evidence of this at
White Springs.
2046
P.A. Gerard-Little et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 2042e2048
Fig. 4. Potential longhouse features. Clockwise from top left: cesium magnetometer, east of palisade; cesium magnetometer, interior space; GPR, east of palisade, 18e18.75 ns.
Two of the potential longhouses were found outside of the
proposed eastern palisade wall, one detected by GPR and one
by magnetometer. There is precedent at Iroquois sites, such
as the partly contemporaneous Onondaga Weston site (circa
1682e1696 Sohrweide, 2001) for external structures and it
makes sense that this consolidation of a number of sites
destroyed by Denonville’s attack would have had structures not
contained within the palisade. The longhouse feature detected by
the GPR is oriented parallel to both the proposed palisade wall
and the topographic contours. This feature cannot be seen in the
magnetometer data, perhaps because of its depth. The external
longhouse feature in the magnetometer data is oriented
perpendicular to the palisade and topography and does not
appear in the GPR data.
Just inside the proposed eastern palisade wall, features forming
two potential longhouses were recorded. These are visible in the
magnetometer data and separated by less than five meters. They
extend out of the survey area, so their full length is unknown.
Because the only archaeogeophysically visible potential longhouses inside the palisade are partial, we cannot confirm that the
dimensions of the internal longhouses are comparable to the
dimensions of external longhouses. This information does,
however, provide hints about the Seneca response to turbulent
times.
P.A. Gerard-Little et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 2042e2048
2047
Fig. 5. Possibilities of palisade extent. An aerial map of the total survey area (thick black line) with potential locations of southern palisade wall delineated by dotted lines.
The relative locations of other figures are also indicated.
Our analysis has also identified three potential candidates for
the south wall of the palisade (Fig. 5), based on evaluations of
archaeogeophysical characteristics, excavation data, and surface
survey. The area enclosed by the palisade, calculated for each of
these three possibilities with the other three boundaries held
constant, ranges from 1.42 to 2.75 ha (Table 1), considerably smaller
than the 3.23e4 ha (8e10 acres) many scholars estimate as the
size of post-Columbian Iroquois towns occupied by as many as
two thousand people (Engelbrecht, 2003; Jones, 2008; Snow,
1994). While most authorities posit that Iroquois population
levels dropped during the 1680e1700 period (Brandão, 1997,
p. 126; Parmenter, 2010, Appendix 2; Snow, 1994, Table 7.1), the
magnitude of such losses coupled with the likelihood of an influx of
people from satellite communities suggests that there should not
be a significant contrast in the populations of Ganondagan and
White Springs. Therefore the apparent decrease in domestic space
of roughly 25e40 percent from the preceding settlement may
Table 1
Areal Calculations based on the three possibilities for the south wall of the palisade.
South wall location
Area (hectares)
Perimeter (m)
1
2
3
1.42
2.30
2.75
500
610
666
reflect crowded conditions, perhaps related to the construction of
the town in wartime.
5. Conclusions
While the exact population of White Springs may not be known,
even the relatively larger size offered by the southernmost candidate remains small in comparison to areal estimates based on
settlement precedents. This speaks to the circumstances of White
Springs’ construction and perhaps indicates that a greater proportion of daily activity took place in extramural locations, areas like
those found toward the southernmost excavation units where
several large pit features (Features 2, 3, and 6) have been excavated.
These excavations revealed at least three very large fire-related pit
features below the plowzone, each 1.25e2.0 m or more in length,
making them too large for indoor use in wooden structures. Each of
these firepits is associated with large quantities of fragmented
animal bone, Seneca-era artifacts, and thermally altered material.
By constructing a smaller palisade than precedent, external structures, and large outdoor firepits might suggest was necessary for
a large population, Senecas balanced expediency of settlement
construction with the safety of inhabitants. This broader understanding was made possible by the introduction of archaeogeophysics to the project.
2048
P.A. Gerard-Little et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 2042e2048
The lessons of the survey at White Springs are several: magnetometry and GPR can be effective techniques even on complex
multi-component Northeastern sites; integration of excavationbased archaeological knowledge, historical documentation (when
available), and archaeogeophysical expertise is necessary for a fullyinformed survey approach; and that archaeogeophysics contributes
to one aspect of a much broader theoretical project, providing a basis
for further interpretation and investigation. Future fieldwork will
do well to integrate archaeogeophysics with more traditional
approaches, developing a more collaborative research design that
contributes new and significant data to anthropological archaeological efforts at the landscape-scale.
References
Alexander, R.T., 1998. Afterword: toward an archaeological theory of culture contact.
In: Cusick, J.G. (Ed.), Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and
Archaeology. Occasional Paper No. 25. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, pp. 476e495.
Aspinall, A., Gaffney, C., Schmidt, A., 2008. Magnetometry for Archaeologists,
Geophysical Methods for Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Lanham.
Brandão, J.A., 1997. Your Fyre Shall Burn No More: Iroquois Policy Toward New
France and Its Native Allies to 1701. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Clay, R.B., 2001. Complementary geophysical techniques: why two ways are always
better than one. Southeastern Archaeology 20, 31e43.
Conover, G.S., 1880. Early History of Geneva (Formerly Called Kanadesaga)
Kanadesaga and Geneva. Geneva, NY.
Conyers, L.B., Goodman, D., 1997. Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for
Archaeologists. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
Engelbrecht, W., 2003. Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World. Syracuse
University Press, Syracuse, NY.
Gaffney, C., Gater, J., 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists.
Tempus Publishing Ltd, Gloucestershire.
Gerard-Little, P., 2011. Understanding the Built Environment at the Seneca Iroquois
White Springs Site (1688e1715): Incorporation of Large-Scale, Multi-Instrument Archaeogeophysical Survey. M.A., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Graham, R.J., Wray, C.F., 1985. The Boughton Hill Site, Victor, NY. The Iroquoian:
Newsletter of the Lewis Henry Morgan Chapter of the New York State
Archaeological Association 10.
Harris, C., 2004. How did colonialism dispossess? Comments from an edge of
empire. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94, 165e182.
Hayes, C.F.I., Barber, D.M., Hamell, G.R., 1978. An Archaeological Survey of Gannagaro State Historic Site, Ontario County, New York. Rochester, N.Y.
Heidenreich, C.E., 1971. Huronia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians,
1600e1650. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto.
Jones, E.E., 2008. Iroquois Population History and Settlement Ecology, AD 1500e1700.
PhD Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
Jordan, K.A., 2008. The Seneca Restoration, 1715e1754: An Iroquois Local Political
Economy. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Jordan, K.A., 2009. Colonies, colonialism, and cultural entanglement: the
archaeology of postcolumbian intercultural relations. In: Majewski, T.,
Gaimster, D. (Eds.), International Handbook of Historical Archaeology.
Springer, New York.
Jordan, K.A., 2010. Not just “one site against the world”: Seneca Iroquois intercommunity connections and autonomy 1550e1779. In: Scheiber, L.L.,
Mitchell, M.D. (Eds.), Across the Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native
North American Societies, 1400e1900. Amerind Studies in Archaeology.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 79e106.
Keener, C.S., 1999. An Ethnohistorical analysis of Iroquois assault tactics used
against fortified settlements of the Northeast in the seventeenth century.
Ethnohistory 46, 777e807.
Konrad, V., 1981. An Iroquois frontier: the north shore of Lake Ontario during the
late seventeenth century. Journal of Historical Geography 7, 129e144.
Kvamme, K.L., 2003. Geophysical surveys as landscape archaeology. American
Antiquity 68, 435e457.
Kvamme, K.L., Ahler, S.A., 2007. Integrated remote sensing and excavation at Double
Ditch State Historic Site, North Dakota. American Antiquity 73, 359e561.
New York State Legislature. Assembly, 1909. Documents of the Assembly of the State
of New York. J.B. Lyon Company, State Printers, Albany.
Parmenter, J., 2010. The Edge of the Woods: Iroquoia, 1534e1701. Michigan State
University Press, East Lansing.
Poulton, D.R., 1991. Report on the 1991 Archaeological Investigations of the Bead
Hill Site. City of Scarborough, Ontario.
Ritchie, W., Funk, R.E., 1973. Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast.
University of the State of New York State Education Dept., Albany.
Rogers, M.B., Baham, J.E., Dragila, M.I., 2006. Soil iron content effects on the ability
of magnetometer surveying to locate buried agricultural drainage pipes.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 22, 701e704.
Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A., Herzog, A., 1990. In: Scollar, I. (Ed.), Archaeological
Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press.
Silliman, S.W., 2005. Culture contact or colonialism? Challenges in the archaeology
of native North America. American Antiquity 70, 55e74.
Snow, D.R., 1994. The Iroquois, The Peoples of America. Blackwell, Cambridge.
Sohrweide, G.A., 2001. Onondaga longhouses in the late seventeenth century on the
Weston site. The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 117, 1e24.
Thwaites, R.G. (Ed.), 1959. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and
Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610-1791. 73 volumes.
Pageant Book Company, New York. Originally published 1896-1901, Burrows
Brothers, Cleveland.
Trubowitz, N.L., 1976. SUNY Buffalo Archaeological Survey 1976 Highway Program
Annual Status Report. Department of Anthropology, State University of
New York at Buffalo.
Williams-Shuker, K., 2005. Cayuga Iroquois households and gender relations during
the contact period: an investigation of the Rogers Farm Site, 1660se1680s. PhD
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wray, C.F., 1983. Seneca glass trade beads c. AD 1550e1820. In: Hayes, C.F.I. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference. Rochester Museum and
Science Center, Rochester, N.Y.
Wray, C.F., Sempowski, M.L., Saunders, L.P., Cervone, G.C., 1987. The Adams and
Culbertson Sites, Charles F. Wray Series in Seneca Archaeology, first ed.
Research Division of the Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester, N.Y.