The Batsto and Mullica

[woodjin]

I found this while surfing the net and found it interesting. Most of it will be common knowledge to alot of people here on the site but it might be new information for some. One thing that surprised me is that they located 1000 known sites of pre-historical communities in the pine barrens. I didn't realize they knew of that many. 100 of which are on the Mullica. I bet most are in the lower bay area.

Jeff

http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/JacquesCousteau/History.html

 

[bobpbx]

I don't believe this is accurate Jeff, or even close to accurate. Everything I have ever read indicates they only traveled through, or maybe hunted in the pines before retiring to their villages along the Rancocas and other rivers where agriculture was more fruitful (no pun intended). The article indicates that.."Evidence of these pre-historic cultures has been found in over 1000 sites in the Pine Barrens, including over 100 sites along the Mullica River and its tributaries."

Let me unpackage this statement. What is evidence, one arrowhead? One clam shell dropped on the way home from the bay? What is a site? Is it a village, a wigwam, a bathing place? What? We know they were here, that is undisputed. But they make it sound like they were swarming all over. I don't think that is true.

 

[Teegate]

Is there a reason why Batsto is spelled Basto in that article? The thread was titled that and I corrected the spelling, but after reading the article should I have??

Guy

 

[Ben Ruset]

I don't really understand it either. Like Bob, everything that I always read said that they just passed through the Pine Barrens on the way to the shore. But surely, even if agriculture wasn't so hot, the hunting had to be good.

They probably didn't have full blown settlements, but I bet there were hunting encampments.

 

[pinelandpaddler]

I bet there were hunting encampments.

No doubt.

Supposedly, Nescochague was a permanent summer village . I'd like to see the actual evidence, though.

 

[LARGO]

Supposedly, Nescochague was a permanent summer village . I'd like to see the actual evidence, though.

I get Ben's point for certain, and I get yours, but not to sound funny, that which makes the Nescochague known to us is far from Prehistoric. I would think it is two different topics actually.

g.

 

[pinelandpaddler]

that which makes the Nescochague known to us is far from Prehistoric. I would think it is two different topics actually.

Are you talking about the pond? Yes, that was created by the damming of the Hammonton Creek in the 1750's (?). In any case, it was the area around the confluence of the Atsion and Hammonton Creeks that I understand to have been called "Nescochague" by the Lenape.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by two different topics...

 

[woodjin]

I don't believe this is accurate Jeff, or even close to accurate. Everything I have ever read indicates they only traveled through, or maybe hunted in the pines before retiring to their villages along the Rancocas and other rivers where agriculture was more fruitful (no pun intended). The article indicates that.."Evidence of these pre-historic cultures has been found in over 1000 sites in the Pine Barrens, including over 100 sites along the Mullica River and its tributaries."

Let me unpackage this statement. What is evidence, one arrowhead? One clam shell dropped on the way home from the bay? What is a site? Is it a village, a wigwam, a bathing place? What? We know they were here, that is undisputed. But they make it sound like they were swarming all over. I don't think that is true.

Everything I have read also indicates that indians were primarily transiant through the pines barrens (As it should, we are all reading the same books). However, keep in mind that this site is primarily concerned with estuaries. It would not surprise me if the great bay, barneget bay and all the tidal tributaries (including in large part the Mullica) were a hot bed of indian activity. The bays are extremely fertile in fish, shell fish and water fowl. I assumed the article was referring to these areas more so than upstream, into the big woods. The pinebarrens in this article might be referring to the larger pinebarrens reserve which would include these bay areas.

Jeff

 

[LARGO]

I'm not sure I know what you mean by two different topics...

The article with it's great recent historical content, just seemed to me to begin with peoples of thousands of years ago, thusly predating that which we know as able to be named. I look at the region and what you would find prehistorically much differently than the one we know of the past few hundred years where we can give names to places like "Mullica" and "Batsto" and "Nescochague". That's all.
Ahh but I suppose one begets another. I should look at it as Michener would write about it. Sorry.

g.