7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

1/16

Smithsonian Series in Archaeological lnquiryBRueE D. SMITH AND ROBERT Mee. ADAMS, SERIES EDITORSThe Smithsonian Series in Archaeological lnquiry presems original case studiesthat address importam general research problems and demonstrare the values ofparticular theoretical and/or methodological approaches. Titles include well-focused, edited collections as wel l as works by individual authors. The series isopen to ali subject areas, geographical regions, and theoretical modes.Advisory BoardLinda Cordell, University of Colorado MuseumKent V Flannery, University of MichiganGeorge C. Frison, University ofWyomingOlga F.Linares, Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteDavid HurstThomas, American Museum ofNatural HistoryJohn E. Yellen, National Science Foundation

TheArchaeo logyo/SocialBoundar i e sEDITED BY MIRIAM T. STARK

~0414M use u d e M Qu eo lO gia e H ! \o lO g iauni~ersidade de SO paulOBIBLlOTEC/l .

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESSWASHINGTON AND LONDON

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

2/16

6

The Cultural Origins ofTechnical Choice:Unraveling Algonquian and lroquoian Ceramic Traditions

in the Northeast

ELIZABETH s. CHILTON

Inortheastern North America, the Late Woodland per iod (ca. A.D. IOOO-1600) isdefined and described largely on the basis ofvariation in ceramics. Ar-chaeologists in the region have constructed fairly rigid srylisric typologies forceramics in order to infer ethnicity and chronology (e.g., Engelbrecht 1978;Mac-Neish 1952;Rouse 1947; Srnith 1947).While these typologies have been useful insome cases for the construction of culture histories, they have often become anend in themselves. Often these srylistic types are taken to be a direct relection ofgroup affiliation: for example, when a certain "type" of ceramic isfound outside ofits "homeland," it is interpreted as either srylisric copying, trade, or "female cap-ture" (e.g. , Brooks 1946; Byers and Rouse 1960; Engelbrecht 1972; Lavin 1988).While Northeast archaeologists have placed a premium on decoration for discern-ing such things as ethniciry (e.g., Engelbrecht 1978; Plog 1980a; contra Brumbach1975;Goodby 1992), little attention has been paid to the wide variety of choicesavailable to potters during ceramic production and use. Certainly the level atwhich we isolate aspects of material culture determines the patterns ofbehavior weare able to see (Lechtman 1977:12).Therefore, an overemphasis on decoration inNortheast ceramic studies has inhibited a deeper understanding of the technolog-ical and social contexts of ceramic manufacture and use.The goal of the research presented here isto underscore and examine the com-

plex relationships among technical choices, historical context, and society.Theserelationships are examined through an attribute analysis of technical choices forthree Late Woodland archaeological sites in the Northeastern United States. Be-

AIgonquian and Iroquoian Ceramic Traditions in the Northeast 133

fore I discuss the details of the archaeological context, I present a theoretical back-ground for the notion of style in technology.

TOWARDS A THEORY OF CHOICE

As Dean Arnold rightfully points out "material culture isnowhere near assimpleasit once seemed to be" (D. Arnold 1991:345).Thanks to rhe creative ethnographicwork of archaeologists and other social scienrists (e.g., Dietler and Herbich 1989;Hodder 1982,1986; Lechtman 1977;Lemonnier 1989;Plog 1990;Sackett 1990), ce-ramic ecologists (D. Arnold 1985,1993;P.Arnold 1991;Stark 1995c),and feministarchaeologists (Gero and Conkey 1991;Spector 1993),our understanding of themeaning of materiaIs ismuch more complex, perhaps, than it was a decade ago. Irisclear that we must move beyond a simplistic division between style and functionifwe are to gain any crit ical understanding of the social dimensions of materialcul ture (Dietler and Herbich, this volume). If , for example, we accept Hill 's(1985:374)definition of style-the "characteristic manner of expression, execution,construction or design"-we recognize sryle as permeating ali aspects of variationin material culture. Indeed, style is a multilayered phenomenon, with differentlayers of style reRecting different cultural processes (Gosselain, this volume).A focus on how things are made issomewhat of a departure from traditional an-

thropological archaeology. In fact, the study of techniques is often regarded as anarea ofinquiry outside anthropology (Mahias 1993=157).But the concept of"tech-nological style" (Lechtman 1977) focuses on the relation between techniques andsociety-not on techniques in their own right (van der Leeuw 1993:240).Accord-ing to Lemonnier (1992:3):

In most cases, technological systems are summed up merely asstatic con-straints without considering the social aspects of material culture. And inthe few cases where the social aspects are explored, technological systemsare reduced to statements about the shape of artifacts, or worse, their deco-ration ... [emphasis in original].

Recent research shows rhar, in certain contexts, decorative sryle may be less in-dicative of social identities than are technological traditions (Childs 1991;Dietlerand Herbich 1989; Gosselain 1992b; Lechtman 1977; Pfaffenberger 1992; Srark1995c;Steinberg 1977:78; Srerner 1989). For example, Gosselain (r992b), in hisethnographic study of the Bafia and other Cameroonian groups, suggests that the

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

3/16

134 ELIZABETH S. CHILTON

vessel shaping processreflects ethniciry, more than does the end result. Likewise,Miller (1985) in his ethnographic study of pottery manufacture in central India,suggests that shaping techniques-not the shapes themselves-reflect social divi-sions of caste. Here the emphasis is on choice-rather than on the materiaIs ortools-as critical in determining the final product (van der Leeuw 1993:241).Thenatural environment, rather than constraining choice, servesonly as a backdrop orcontexr for social relations (Dobres and Hoffman 1994:231;Lechtman 1977:14).Therefore, social agency is critical in "defining, determining, and articulating par-ticular technologies and the operational sequences" (Dobres and Hoffman1994:231).The basic premise to theories of technological choice isthat societies choose be-

tween a number of equally viable options; given a technical problem, choices tran-scend mere material efficacy or technical logic (Lemonnier 1989:156, 1993a:16;Mahias 1993=177).There are more subtle informational or symbolic aspects oftechnology that involve arbitrary choices about techniques and materials, and thatare a part of a larger symbolic system (Lemonnier 1992:3).For example, when de-signing an airplane, an engineer is influenced by what she or he thinks an airplane"should be like" based on already existing designs, and her or his education andcultural experience (Lemonnier 1989:170).A theory of technical choice does not simply replace an overemphasis on deco-ration with an overemphasis on technology or "function." The concept of techni-cal choice is more comprehensive than orher concepts of sryle (e.g., the social in-teraction [Deetz 1965; Engelbrecht 1978; Plog 1976) or information exchangetheories [Plog 1980a;Wobst 1977)), because it requires asmuch attention to the se-quence and context of manufacture and use as it does to what the finished prod-uct "looks like" or conveys. Thus, in this analysis "style" is viewed as the way anartifact is made, as much as, for example, the way it is decorated.

CERAMIC PRODUCTION IN NEW ENGLAND: OB]ECTIVES

Since there is latitude for choice in virtually every technical aspect ofhuman exis-tence (Pfaffenberger 1992:499;see alsoLechtrnan 1977:14and Lemonnier 1986), inthis study I emphasize the choices that are made by potters throughout the pro-duction sequence in order to move beyond a priori assumptions about the evolu-tion of technology. I consider the entire sequence of decision-making involved inartifact production and interprer ir in its specific sociocultural contexto This ap-proach is very much related to ceramic ecology,which emphasizes the interactionbetween ceramics and their natural and sociocultural context (e.g. , D. Arnold1985,1993;Kramer 1985;Krause 1985;Longacre and Skibo 1994; Skibo 1992).

AL gonquian a nd I ro qu oi an C er am ic T ra di ti on s i n t he N or th ea st 135

~0

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

4/16

136 EL1ZABETH S. CH1LTON

Mohawk cornmuniry. Ali ofrhe sites have components that date to the latter partof the Late Woodland period (A.D. 1300-1600). I chose these assemblages in orderto evaluate the expectations that Algonquian and Iroquois ceramics differ with re-spect to: (I) rhe intended use of vessels; (2) the variables affecting decoration;(3) rhe scaleof ceramic praduction; and (4) technical sryle.

THE DATA SETThe Guida Farm site is located just east ofWestfield, Massachusetts. It was par-tially excavated by William Young in rhe early 1960s, and was also tested by nu-merous other prafessional and amateur archaeologists (see Byers and Rouse 1960).The two major excavations at rhe sites were conducted by Byers and Rouse (1960)in 1952and William Young in 1958.Byers and Rouse excavated four trenches andrhree test pits (Byers and Rouse 1960:9). Apparently, none of the excavations un-covered evidence of sett lement pat terns or structures (see Byers and Rouse1960:12).On the basis of the analysis of material culture, the major occupations ofrhe site date to the Late Woodland and possibly early contact periods (ca. A.D.1000-1700). Ir is a larges ite on a major riverand l ikely represents a place on thelandscape where people repeatedly returned. The site yielded large amounts ofpottery frorn the Late Woodland per iod both on rhe surface and in associationwith features. Ir isunclear how much, if any,of the site still exists, due to farming,bulldozing and historic dumping (John Pretola, pers. comm. 1993)

I analyzed the ceramic assemblage frorn Guida that was excavared by WilliamYoung in 1964 (Young1969).Youngworked with the local MassachusettS Archaeo-logical Sociery(MAS) for many years and excavateda portion of the sitewhile work-ing at the SpringfieldMuseum (John Pretola, pers. comm. 1993)The collection con-tains about 1,000 sherds that were sufficiently complete to be used in rhisanalysis.

Pine Hill was tested by rhe Universiry of Massachusetts Archaeological FieldSchool in the summers of 1989, 1991,1993,and 1995;excavations were co-directedby the author and Arthur S. Keene in 1993and 1995No other documented col-lections are known to exist fram the site, although there has been a great deal oflooting. The site islocated in an open deciduous forest on privare land and isquitelikely the best preserved LateWoodland site in western Massachusetts. The area iscurrently used as a wood lot, and the only plowing apparently took place in theearly nineteenth century, Alrhough the site analysis and interpretarion is not yetcomplete, our current interpretation is rhat the si te represents a seasonal encamp-ment where small graups coalesced for hundreds, if not thousands, ofyears (Keeneand Chilton 1995).However, the site's major occupation seems to have occurredduring the Late Woodland period. Twenry possible storage or food processing fea-tures (n of which contained Late Woodland ceramics) and 50 scattered postmolds

Algonquian and Iroquoian Ceramic Tradi tions in the Northeast 137

have been identified since our excavations began in 1989.Two radiocarbon datesfram pit feature lenses containing ceramics are: (I) cal A.D. 1230-1430; and (2) calA.D. 1420-1520 (p=.67) or cal A.D. 1568-1627 (P =.33) (Chilton 1996). (Calibratedat Isigma with the pragram CALIB 3.0.3 [Stuiver and Pearson 1993].)For the purpose of this study, I analyzed aliof the ceramics collected frorn 1989

to 1993. Several hundred ceramic sherds were recovered fram the Pine Hill site,500of which are sufficiently complete to be analyzed.The Klock site islocated in Ephratah, New York, 15km north of the Mohawk

River on Garaga Creek. The site was excavated under the direct ion of RobertFunk in the summers of 1969 and 1970, after preliminary testing by WilliamRitchie in 1950.Based on analysis of material culture by Kuhn and Funk (1994),the site isthought to date to the rnid-sixteenth century. Two maize samples frama single pir feature at the si te have been radiocarbon dated to cal A.D. 1483-1649and cal A.D. 1326-1439 (calibrated using one sigma; Snow 1995).Klock is a stock-aded village site with evidence of at least seven longhouses, and the si te is thoughtto have been occupied for approximately ten years (Kuhn and Funk 1994). Overthe rwo field seasons in the late 1960s, 157features were encounrered: 76 of thesefeatures were at least partially excavated.The Klock assemblage contains more than 15,000 ceramic fragments. The Klock

collection ismuch larger than those frorn the Connecticut Valley sites because: (I)on the basis of our knowledge ofthe largepopulation size of the sixreenth-centurylraquois villages, the sire was prabably larger than contemporaneous ConnecticutValleysites; and (2) a much larger area was excavated. A random sample of enoughsherds (n =214) to comprise 100 vessellots was chosen from the Klock assemblagefor analysis (the means of establishing vessel lots isdescribed below).

Before I discuss the details and results of the ceramic analysisof these three as-semblages, I will provide some backgraund for the Late Woodland period in rheNortheast.

LATE WOODLAND CULTURAL DYNAMICSBased on ethnohistoric and linguistic evidence, the Late Woodland cornmunitiesof southern New England spoke dialects belonging to the Algonquian languagefamily. The tribal groups in the Mohawk Valley,on the other hand, spoke dialectsbelonging to rhe lraquoian language family. The Iraquois of the Late Woodlandperiod resided predominant ly in central and western New York and were sur-rounded by Algonquian-speaking graups. Current linguistic and archaeologicalevidence supports the theory that the lraquois migrated into the region sornetimebetween A.D. 900 and A.D. 1300 (Denny 1994; Parker 1916;Snow 1994; Swihart1992; contra MacNeish 1952,1976) and either intermingled with orwedged thern-

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

5/16

138 ELIZABETH S. CHILTON

selvesberween resident Algonquian groups in the Mohawk Valley.AsI will discussbelow, these linguistic differences berween Algonquian and Iroquois groups wereaccompanied by a series of cultural distinctions.

In the greater Northeast, and especially for the Iroquois, the Late Woodland isperceived as a culturally dynamic period: agriculture became important for sub-sistence, communities became more sedentary, and population and the incidenceof imergroup conflict increased (see Fenton 1978). However, rhe Late Woodlandarchaeology of the middle Connecticut Valley Algonquians is poor1y known. Inche middle Connecticut Valley,unlike areas to the south and west, no evidence ex-ists for large, permanem, fortified settlements and intensive agriculture (seeThor-bahn 1988).Concerning the lackof evidence for large, LateWoodland villages inthe region,archaeologists used to claim rhat they had not yet been found, or, as Ritchieclaimed for the Hudson Valley, that they had been obli terated by the large-scaledestruction of sites as a result of Euroamerican sett lement and digging by ama-teurs (Ritchie 1958:7; see aiso Snow 1980:320). Certainly, the looting of sites hasbeen, and continues to be, a serious problem (Jordan 1975). Also, due to the large,dynamic floodplain of the Connecticut Valley, some Late Woodland sites mayhave been buried or destroyed. Neverrheless, the seeming invisibility of LateWoodland villagesin the eastern Algonquian area may reflect a high degree of mo-bility for the small groups residem in the valleys ofthe interior (Ritchie 1958:108).

Horticulture

While maize horticulture was presem in the greater New England area by A.D.1000, irwas not practiced to the same degree across the region (George and Ben-dremer 199P4; see also Cassedy et aI. 1993 and Heckenberger et aI. 1992). Cer-tainly the t iming and importance of maize horticulture in New England is con-troversial (see Ceci 1979, 1990; Demeritt 1991; Silver 1980). There is no evidencethat maize was anything more than a dietary supplernent in the New England in-terior, at leas tprior to European setrlernent (Dincauze 1991:30; McBride 1984:144;cf George and Bendremer 1995; Snow 1980:333). Whether the Europeans were thedirect cause or not, most New England archaeologists agree that intensive maizehorticul ture did not occur in New England until after the arrival ofEuropeans (seeCeci 1982; McBride and Dewar 1987; Thorbahn 1988).

Sevemeemh-cemury accoums of the nat ive New England diet belie claims ofmaize specialization. Wood (1977:86) in 1634, recorded for the Massachusetts Bayregion: "In wintertime they have alI manner of fowls of the water and of the land,and the beasts ofthe land and water, pond-fish, with catharres and other roots, In-dian beans and clarns. In the summer they have ali manner of shellfish, with ali

A lg o nq ui an a nd Ir oq uo ia n C er am ic T ra di ti on s i n t he N ortheast 139

sorts ofberries." Josselyn (1988:93), reporting on his journey to the coast ofMainein 1674, echoes this diverse menu:Their Diet is Fish and Fowl, Bear, Wild-cat, Ratton and Deer; dryedOysters, Lobsters rosted or dryed in the smoak, Lampres and dr y' d Moose-tongues, which they esteem a dish for a Sagamor, hard egges ... theirlndian Corn and Kidney beans they boil ... they feed l ikewise upon earth-nuts or ground-nuts, roots of water-Lillies, Ches-nuts, and divers sorts ofBerries [original emphasis].

Based on his observations in 1643 of the Narragansett Bay region, Roger Williamsstressed the importance ofhuming and trapping of numerous animals and the col-lecting of acorns, chestnuts, walnuts, strawberries and cranberries (Williams 1963).

In contrast, the Iroquois of upstate New York were directly dependem on maizefor subsistence. According to Parker (1968:9), maize was so importam to the Iro-quois "that they called ir by a name meaning 'our !ife' or 'it sustains us.'" 50 im-portam was maize to the Iroquois, that European invaders commonly burned Iro-quois maize fields and maize stores as a warfare tactic (Parker 1968:17).The type of horticulture practiced by the Iroquois was "shifting horticulture"

(Niemczycki 1984:3; seealso Morgan 190I). In order to prepare an area for horti-culture, tracks of forest were cut and burned. The locations of the fields wereshifted periodically to rnaintain the fert il ity of the soil. The type of maize culti-vated by the Iroquois was Northern Flim or closely related varieties (Fenton1978:325). This type of maize is unlike modern sweet corn, since it requires cook-ing for a long period of time over a hot fire. Overall, a great deal of time was de-voted to the cultivation, harvest, storage and preparation of maize for consump-tion. Parker (1968) also indicates that there were many customs and rituais relatedto the cultivation and consumption of maize.While maize was a dietary sraple, other cultivated and wild plants were impor-

tam for subsistence, such asbeans, melons and squash, fungi and lichens, fruits,berries, nuts, roots, and bark foods (Parker 1968). Also, there is archaeologicalevidence that the Iroquois hunted deer, elk, bear, and turkey, and collected freshwater mussels (Funk 1976).

Settlement PatternsBased on both ethnohistoric and archaeological accounts, we know that the tradi-tional dwelling throughout New England was the wigwam (Fig. 6.2). The size ofwigwams was apparently srnall: Williams (196p21) describes a dwelling for rwofamilies as "a little round house of some fourteen or fifteen foot over." Likewise,Higgeson (1629:123) states: "Their houses are verie little and hornely, being made

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

6/16

14 ELIZABETH S. CHILTON

(A)

NOTTO SCALEFigure 6.2. Reconstructions of indigenous architectural forms: (a) cut-away ofa wigwam(afrer Sturtevanr 1975, figo2C ); (b) longhouse (after Kraft 19 75:83).

with small poles pricked into the ground." Each house was likelyshared by one orrwo related families (Morgan 1965=124;Williams 1963=61) .For rhe Hudson Valley,Johan de Laet (1625-1640 [jameson 1909:57]) saysof the Algonquians living therethat "some of thern lead a wandering life in the open aire without settled habita-tion .... Others have fixed places of abode." Thus , it is clear that there was diver-sity in settlement practices even within a particular valley. For some groups, the

A lg on qu ia n and Iroquoian Ceram ic Traditions in the No rtheast 14 1

size and shape of dwellings would change, depending on popularion densiry (e.g.,smal l wigwams in the summer, multifamily longhouses in the winter; Cronon19 83=38).Williams (1963= 13 5)aiso comments on the Algonquians' seasonal movements

and the flexibility of their habitations:

In the middle ofsummer ... they will H ie and remove on a sudden fromone part of their f ield to a fresh place Sornetimes they remove to ahunting house in the end of the year but their great remove is fromtheir Summer fields to warme and thicke woodie bottoms where they win-ter: They are quicke; in a halfe a day,yea, sometimes a few houres warningto be gone and the house up elsewhere.

Similarly, Josselyn (1988:91 ) notes the impermanence of New England cornmuni-ties: "Towns they have none, being always removing from one placeto another forconveniency of food.... I have seen half a hundred of their Wigwams rogether ina piece of ground and rhey shew prettily, within a day or rwo, or a week they haveali been dispersed."In terms of archaeological evidence, while McBride (1984 :322) claims that"(rnlost New England archaeologists report an increase in artifact ... and site den-sity as well as a trend toward fewer, larger sites after A.D. 1000 ," this is apparentlytrue only in the lower Connecticut Valley (see George and Bendremer 1995). Infact, Ceci (1 979) reports that there is no evidence of village-based settlement pat-terns on Long Island. McBride's clairn of increasing site density and size is, like-wise, no t evident in the New England interior (see Thorbahn 1988).

In contrast to the small and impermanent set tlernents of the New England In-dians, the lroquois resided in villages of 30 to 15 0 ft , multiroomed longhouses(Fenton 19 78:306; Fig. 6. 2) . These villageswere inhabited for 25-50 years at a time(Tuck 1978:326). Morgan states that these longhouses accommodated up to rwentyfamilies (Morgan 1965:64 ). Each household was comprised of a group of kin re-lared through the female line (Morgan 1965:64). Many of the Iroquois villages ofthe Late Woodland period were palisaded for defense, which islikely a reflectionof the intercornmuni ty confl ict tha t arose asa resul t of sedent ism and intensivehorticulture (Hasenstab 1990:1 ; see also Morgan 1901:3 06).

Po lit ic al D i fferences

The fiveand, later, six nations of the Iroquois shared a cultural base and "a well-developed triballevel sociopolitical organization which distinguished thern from

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

7/16

142 ELIZABETH S. CHILTON

their Algonquian neighbors" (Niemczycki 1984:3). Population size apparently grewand sertlemenrsbecame more nucleated during the LateWoodland period, asthe im-portance of agriculture and the availabiliryof surplus food increased. As a result ofincreasing population growth and densiry, rhe size,power and rigidiry of matrilocal-matrilineal groups increased asa means of controlling intergroup relations (Whal-lon 1968:242-243).This sociopolitical organization differed greatly from the "loosely organized"

Algonquians ofNew England (Fenton 1940:162). Here, no political unit was largerthan the village, and there was no central authoriry to force political conformiry(Thomas 1979:400). Since groups were fissioning and fusing seasonally, patternsof residence and the reckoning of kin needed to be more flexible. As E. Johnson(1993) proposes, mobil iry may have been a pol itical st rategy of resistance toauthoriry-that is, the authoriry of certain native politicalleaders, and, later, theEnglish. By maintaining flexibiliry and mobiliry in their settlement practices, theAlgonquians of the interior could literally "vote with their feet," which may ex-plain the infrequent occurrence of warfare prior to European contact.

AIgonqu ian - Ir oquo is In te r ac t io n s

Thus far I have presented differences berween the Algonquians of the Connecti-cut Valleyand the lroquois of the Mohawk Valleyasdichotomous. However, rhereis increasing evidence of interaction between the Mohawk and the ConnecticutValleygroups, at least in the early historic periods (Haefeli and Sweeney 1993; Sal-isbury 1993). Trade nerworks associated with the immigration of Europeans mayhave served to augment or even reduce earlier ties between Algonquians and rhelroquois, but these ties were likely forged in the prehistoric period. There isalsoarchaeological evidence for contact and trade prior to the arrival ofEuropeans. Forexarnple, New Yorkchert tools and debitage are commonly found on archaeolog-ical sites in New England. While these "exotic" materiais are more numerous incertain periods (such asthe Late Archaic, about 6,000-3,000 yearsbefore present),they are present to some degree for most of the prehistoric period. Also, despitethe differences between Algonquian and lroquoian subsistence, settlernent, andceramics, the differences are mostly in degree and not in kind. For example, rherwo groups shared numerous cultigens: maize, beans, squash, and robacco. Also,certain design motifs reoccur across the Northeast, such asthe "ladder motif" (seeMacNeish 1952:159) and geometrically designed, zoned collars. These similaritiesare the main reason why New England archaeologists have atternpted to importNew York rypologies whole stock. While, in some casesthe similarities may be theresult of direct trade, stylisric similarities are often the result of social interactionand the occasional movement of people. There may, indeed, have been a symbi-

Algonquian and lroquoian Ceramic Tradi tions in the Northeast 143

otic relationship between the lroquois as settled horticulturalists and the Algon-quian mobile farmers.

E th n oh is to ri c A c co un ts o f N o rt he as t C e ram ic s

There are few references to ceramic rnanufacture in the ethnohistoric literature forNew England, and in the scant material available there is contradiction. For ex-ample, while Williams (1963=179) recorded that the "wornen make ali their earthenvessels," according to Gookin (1792:151), men made pottery.For the lroquois there ismore ofa consensus that women produced pottery ves-

sels (Morgan 1901:280; Whallon 1968:230). According to Sagard (1968:109), in hisseventeenth-century account ofhis travels among the Huron, it was women whowere firing pots "in their hearrhs" ien l eur foyer , incorrectly translated as "ovens" inrhis English translation). There is little to no archaeological evidence for ceramicfiring features in rhe northeast. Therefore, it is likely that most native peoples ofrhe Northeasr fired their pottery in multipurpose hearths. Thus, direct evidencefor ceramic production and firing is absent.According to Engelbrecht (1978:141), groups of related lroquois women coop-

erated to make pottery. Since the lroquois resided in semipermanent villages, thecontext and timing of ceramic manufacture would have been fairly consistent andpredictable. On the other hand, for the Algonquians of the New England interior,small groups were likely fissioning and fusing throughout the year, and the small-est ceramic production unit was likely the nuclear family. Ceramics would havebeen produced in variable environments and in cooperation with various person-nel. While there are no ethnohistoric references to the quantiry of ceramic vesselsproduced, it isclear from the archaeological record that lroquois ceramic produc-t ion was conducted at a much larger scale than that of the Connect icut ValleyAlgonquians. These different contexts and scalesof ceramic manufacture have im-plications for ceramic homogeneiry and heterogeneiry, which I discuss below.

Ar chaeol ogic al Ce r am ic s

ln general, native ceramics from the Late Woodland period are more elaboratethan earlier ceramics in the Northeastern United States in both decoration andform (e.g., globular bodies, applied collars, castellated rims, and constricted necks[Goodby 1992:4]). There has been little research on native ceramic traditions inMassachusetts; thus, archaeologists in the state often relyon ceramic sequences de-veloped for southern and coastal New England and New York (see Luedtke1986:U3; MacNeish 1952:98; Ritchie and MacNeish 1949; Lenig 1965). ln southernNew England, ceramic classificarions are largely based on the work of Srnith (1944,

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

8/16

- c :~~"Oc:'"O~~~c: .. .1l:;oV.SE.S~'"=:u.~8"O@~ = a

\D o~ ~o :l "...,f - < j

1. < : :~

8~O

- a.:;o

- "8@- '"l

J~~: 5- ac~

~ '"- s 5 ~ ~s EE ~ ~ Q Jcn 1-.0 Il,) t~ E.~ ~ ~ ~U 1-0 V) c=~ a a l.Cil"' " c: :~ ". c: :Cl . oE . ;: :'1 ~'"E 8d~

. . . v ; ( 'I j 1-05 ~ =5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~~ ~~ .~

~ ~ ~ V i10 = lU C::l o ... oV) u ... ! :! 'c

[J-D '" ,. . ,A c: :8 ~~ .. 9.. ol ? u

. . ~"ccCl . , .~ ~~ " -:g ~ ~v;o .. ..~ a o~~ ' g . Sv .- -o- 5 l - a @- s t " " E

E ~~ ~8

>- .o ,~ ~e :l -e" cr oE:..: co Cl . "c c, .., ( ~

" " E - - s " " ' d .~ EB.5~ -5o o.. oA E8 :'!>- ." . . 9... ol ? u

, >--e Eltlv ._ V o6 = g E~ ~ ' :: c r tg .: o .Q :;-1 -0 o " " ' d ~ t:;.... _ V 1-0 Q,) ~ ~ ,;'c ~ c, -e b'o

c: : t~""E'3~o 5-s; ... ::: ~-o~~2""E -o~@@ g e E @ ~ : "o ~ ~ r 3 "" E - O " ' : . a ~Q- E 2 ~ ~ ~ .~: ~~ 8 a ~ 8 .5 ~ ~8

c: :.Q.~o~-o- a""?

- "~~ZE. . ,~~: >S~< - ..o~

": : ' "" ::" ~":: :l '"( .~ =c . . . . . c=~"" ~ ~11 c: V~ c o ee:? s u~

-oc: :-o "c -;;;" -:: ~ O J).l c: :~ .~ .s" u" " c: :. < : : c: : . ~ c : : "g o ~Vl U ..,~~"6 -g - E" " '"t -" ';"" . c: :1 ! : >S j:; ~o " c : :ti) Z ti~ .. ~~ -g i:2 ~~ -o ~ ... ... tJ

Zv~~8~~b.O .- l.C ::l~-gc:E ~-8~~j~~dJjd8~c :E1 l"..

" " B:. 2c,t o2l ?

-o v i" " ~.5 " " 'd " "E'" " ~g -8 a t.+ -.l U o 5 CE c : : .. . o:l -e ~ EZ c .- >-" -o A"=~u ~:l -e ~e @ o"-" uE lU ~:: ~ ~z u o,,' ,.~ - eu o.5 u" "e -e':; '5l ? l ?

, u: ~Cl . ,, -o-o "" Cl .~ E" "c ?

- "o: : : '"c :o c :: '"~ s ; ~,,~ E u~~ -e .5o c:: oc :o " Cl .

,1~.~ ~ ~1 : c: : . ;: :'" o c::o~i

~~c: :$

oor-,o' 10" i P-

5

O2 3

[lPine Hill, )(=6.29 8=2.4~ Guida, )(=6.53 8=1.96 Klock, )(=6.138=1.61

4 5 6 789Thickness (mm)

10 11 12 13

Figure 6.7. Vessel wall thickness.

selswould have been lessresistant to therrnal shock than the Klock sitevessels, butmore resistant to mechanic shock. Another advantage to dense inclusions, asidefrom increasing resistance to mechanical stress, is that it reduces drying time priorto firing; thus, ceramic could have been produced in a wider range of environ-ments, even in colder seasons (O. Amold 1985:97). One disadvantage to a denselytempered paste is that it may lose its plasticity and, therefore, its workability(Aronson er aI. 1994).WA LL TH I C KN ES S AN D VE S SE L SI ZE Means and standard deviationsfor vessel wall thickness are both slightly lower for the Klock site, as compared tothe Connecticut Valley sites (rhe mean is 6.13 mm for Klock, and 6.29 mm and6.53 mm for Pine Hill and Cuida, respectively; Fig. 6.7), but the difference is notstatisrically significant. However, on the basis of body sherd curvature, the Klockvessels are, on average, 70 percent larger than those ofPine Hill and Cuida (29 emvs. 17 cm mean diameter; Fig. 6.8). Because larger vessels are expected to have rel-atively thicker walls in order to support the addi tional weighr, the vessel wallthickness of the Klock assemblage is significantly thinner in proporrion to vesselsize.Morgan (190I:9) indicates that the lroquois pots were "usually of sufficient ca-pacity to contain from 2 to 6 quarts." Larger vessels may also reflect "communaldining" (Snow 1994:13) by the relatively large residential kin groups that existedamong the lroquois in the Late Woodland period (Tuck 1971;Whallon 1968).Vessel wal l thickness directly affects resistance to thermal shock: vessels wirh

thinner walls are less apt to crack when used for cooking. Therefore, since theKlock pots had significanrly rhinner walls (relative to overaIl size), potters were ap-

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

12/16

20Q)o.Ero 15/)if.

10

152 ELlZABETH S. CHILTON

30

25

5

6

[jPine Hill, rnediane t em~ Guida, median- t em Kloek, median=29 em

rr-:

".".

....

10 14 16 22 26 30 34 38 42

Figure 6.8. Body sherd curvature.Diameter in em

parent!y construct ing pots with walls thin enough to withstand the therrnalstressesof cooking maize over long, hot nres. Since susceptibility to thermal shockincreases with vesselsize (see Kingery 1955 and Searle and Grimshaw 1959), otherattributes were used to compensate, such aswall thickness and inclusion kind,size, and amount,The Connecticut Valleyvessels, on the other hand, had rhicker vesselwalls rel-

ative to overall size. Pots with thick walls are less fragile (more resistant to me-chanical shock) but are more l ikely to crack when exposed to heat. Therefore, Isuggest that the Connecticut Valley potters were praducing vessels that were in-tended to withstand mechanical stresses, which would be important for nonseden-tary graups (cf D. Arnold 198PIO). The overall small size of the vessels wouldhave made them easier to transport; many of these small vessels could easilyhaveserved as portable containers for water or food.

Decor a ti v e D i ff i re n ce s

Surface treatment consists of impressions, or evidence of scraping or smoorhingon the exterior and interior surfaces of the fired clay. Examples of surface treat-

A lg on qu ia n a nd I ro qu oi an C er am ic T ra di ti on s i n t he N or th ea st 153

100908070

(/): 60i(/)(/) 50)>if. 40

30

[jPine Hill~ Guida Kloek

2010

o Dentate Punctate Rocker FabricMethodof surfacetreatment

Scraped Linear- ScallopPunctateFigure 6.9. Surface treatrnent by site.ment include srnoothing, wiping, incising, and cord-marking (Table 6.2). Surfacetreatment can be an artifact of manufacturing technique, or purposeful "inishing"for either technical or decorative purposes.There are striking differences in surface treatment between the sites analyzed.

Surface treatments frorn the Klock site are exclusively smoothed, wiped, incised,and notched (Figs. 6.9, 6.10); body sherds are mostly smooth and wiped, and col-lared rims are exclusively incised and notched. The Pine Hill and Guida assem-blagesshow much more diversity in terms of surface treatment. Surface treatmentsfor these sites include: cord-rnarked, dentate-stamped, punctated, rocker-stamped,fabric-impressed, scraped, linear punctated, scallop shell-impressed, as wel l assrnoothed, wiped, incised, and notched (Figs. 6.9, 6.II, and 6.12).On the basis of conventional assumptions that dentate-stamping and fabric-impressing date to the Middle Woodland period (A .D . 0-1000) and therefore pre-date incising, the assemblages fram Pine Hil l and Guida might appear to haveMiddle Woodland components. However, there isevidence that dentate stampingmay also be a Late Woodland and even a Contact period trait, at least in NewEngland. For example, at Pine Hill one sherd exhibits both incising and dentatestamping (vessellot 33), and two vessellots frorn Guida have dentate-stamped col-lars (vessellots 7 and 29); collars are thought to be an exclusivly Late Woodlandtrait. It isclear frorn these examples rhar in rhe Connecticut Valley unilinear evo-lutionary changes in surface treatment cannot be assumed.

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

13/16

154 ELIZABETH S. CHILTON

Figure 6.IO. Vessellots frornthe Klock site. (Illustrationby Maureen Manning-Bernatsky.)

Vessel LeI 6

~. . ";"""" " . .."".- ]. ,,' ~.'

' - . , o

" ;.. - , : .' .. ,""Vessel L eI 15A . D

Vessel LeI 16A

Surface treatmcnts can profoundly affect vesselperformance (see Schiffer et alo1994). For example, a roughened surface, such as those produced by cord-marking, fabric-impressing, or scraping, can increase therrnal shock resistance andreduce thermal spalling (Schiffer et a lo1994). A rough surface also provides a moresecure grip (Rice 1987=232), and may increase heat absorption and the evaporationof liquids (Charlron 1969; Herron 1986). Therefore, surface treatrncnts are notchosen automatically; a potter makes choices and compromises along numerousaxesaccording to various personal, social, and technological criteria. It is possible,therefore, that the Connecticut Valleypots were more often given roughened sur-faces to compensate for the fact that other attributes, such asvessel wall thickness,may have reduced the abili ty of vessels to transfer heat. Therefore, for the occa-sions when pots were used for cooking, a corrugated surface would have been ad-vantageous. As previously mentioned, a roughened surface would aiso make thevesselless slippery, and, therefore, easier to transport.

How elsecan we account for the greater d iversi ty in surface t reatment at theConnecticut Valley sites? SinceAlgonquian groups were quite mobile, and had rel-

Al go nq ui an a nd lroq uoian Ceram ic Tra di ti on s i n t he Northeast

Vessel Lot 1

- l i

155

Figure 6.l!. Vessellotsfrorn rhe Cuida Farm sire,(Illustration by MaureenManning- Bernatsky.)

Vessel Lot 19

Vessel Lot24

atively fluid social boundaries, the social and environmental contexts of ceramicmanufacture and use would have been quite variable. It should come as no sur-prise, then, that the Late Woodland ceramics ofthe Connecticut Valley show greatvariability in surface treatrnents, as well as other technical choices. For the Iro-quois, who were living in more perrnanenr, structured communities, pots wouldhave been made in similar social and ecological contexts each t ime, under morepredictable circumstances; there was both stability and continuiry in ceramic tra-ditions. Accordingly, in rhe present study the Iroquois ceramics show much moreinternal homogeneity in terms of decorative and technological attributes. The ce-ramics from the Klock site have a limited range of decorative rypes and morifs. Aliof the rimsherds from the site /it neatly into the established stylistic typologies for

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

14/16

156 ELIZABETH S. CHILTON

Figure 6.12. Vessellots fromthe Pine Hill site. (Illustra-rion byMaureen Manning-Bernarsky.)

Vessel LeI 1

Vessel LeI 5

Iroquois ceramics: 84 percent of the col lared rim sherds from the si te have beentyped by Kuhn and Funk (1994) as "Caroga Incised," and 7 percent have beentyped asWagoner Incised. The remaining 9 percent were typed as Chance Incised,Deowongo Incised, Martin Horizontal, Cromwell Incised, and Thurston Hori-zontal (Kuhn and Funk 1994:9)

There is certainly meri t in applying the information exchange model in thiscase, in terms of technological sryle an d decorative motifs. First, asWobst (1977:323) points out, "only simple invariate and recurrent messages wil l normally betransmitted srylistically."Mohawk ceramic designs ar e simple, fairly invariant, andrecurrent. They are also restricted in time and space, which iswhy they "work" sowell as chronological and geographical markers (Kuhn and Bamann 198T41).With their fairly rigid social organization, lroquois pottery iconography may havebeen used to signal group idenrity,

In contrast, very few vessels from Pine Hil l and Cuida fit neatly inro the estab-lished typologies. While many of the vessel lots from Cuida resemble rradirionsdefined for southern New England, particularly the Windsor and East River tra-ditions, there issomuch overlap in the New England traditions as they are defined(Table 6.3), that much of the col lection cannot be assigned to known types. The

Al gonqu ian and lroquo ian Ceram ic Tra di ti on s i n t he N or thea st 157

Algonquian pattern (or lack thereof) may indicare individual expression, Buid so-cial boundaries, and a Bexible social organization.

Pr od uctio n S ca le a nd Diversity

Algonquian and lroquoian ceramics apparently differ nor only in their intendeduses, social milieu and production contexts, but aiso in production scale. Morespecifically,Algonquian ceramic production is most aptly described as "householdproduction" (van der Leeuw 1984:?22). Household production is carried out ex-clusively by members of the household for household consumption (D. Arnold1985:225). Household pot ters need to devote little time to ceramic manufacture(P. Arnold 1991:92). For New England Algonquians, variability may have beenmaintained within household production because of: (1 ) the infrequency of the ac-tiviry; (2) the low number of producers involved; and (3) the lack of controls overaccessto resources and information (Rice 1991:273).

Iroquois ceramic production, on the other hand, is closer to what is termed"household industry" (van der Leeuw 1984:?22; contra Allen 1992). Household in-dustry ischaracterized by part-time production for group use. In household in-dustry more people areinvolved in the production sequence (D. Arnold 1985); forthe lroquois, production would have been carried out by groups of related women(see Engelbrecht 1978:141). The major differences between household productionand household industry are that in household industry: (1) production is con-ducted more frequently; (2) there inan increase in the amount of production, and,therefore; (3) there is an additional investment in labor (P.Arnold 1991:92). Pro-duction becomes more regularized, and, archaeologically, increased output leadsto greater ceramic densities (P.Arnold 1991:93). Household industry isoften cor-related with population increase, when there may be may an increase in demandfor ceramics (D. Arnold 1985:226). The archaeological evidence for the lroquoissupports a population increase (or, at least, clustering), increased pottery produc-tion (seeTuck 1978), and a cer tain amount of pottery specializat ion during theLate Woodland period. This "household industry" does not refer to productionfor market. lroquois society ischaracterized by a high degree of communalliving.Therefore, iterns such as pots were produced and shared within and between lin-eages and clans. Iris likely that a cer tain amount ofs tandardization was achievedsimply through repetition and routinization of the production of large amounts ofpottery (seeRice 1991:268).

Certainly, as Allen (1992:154) points out, there is "no evidence to support thepresence of a higher levei of organization for ceramic production [among rhe Iro-quois] than the household level." Indeed, I suggest that production was happen-ing at the household levei, but i t washappening on a larger scale, and with more

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

15/16

oor-,I 'oo8c :i.. :d~~Z-e~-ec : :'"Mc~~cI - < U , . . . - . . : .~E"il2-C..ci"-c, ~ ~ . ~ ' J :.

,c: 10 I c ::- 5 - 3 ~ ] ~ .~":"::'{l-8-csc,,~8 bn ~ 15 .. B 1 :: : - g ~~ - -C ~ E '-E3~~t~2a~~ E 'S ~ E o....v c : ... ~ ';::aJ8~~$~: E~~: . s. g - ci ' ~ . .. ~ - 5 ; gc : ~ t3 ~ o ... Ei1&~ .. s ~ooi"-~o'

7/29/2019 Chilton 1998

16/16

160 EL1ZABETH S. CHILTON

therefore, possible rhat a certain Algonquian conservatism played a role in thechoices made-or not made, in the case of the routinization of ceramic produc-tion, sedentism, and social hierarchy. In rhis paper I have focused on "logical" rea-sons for choices in ceramic production. Nevertheless, I would like to underscorerhe fact that there isa certain amount of arbitrariness involved in both technicaland nontechnical or adjunct choices (see Lemonnier 1993a:16). There may not be"logical" or obvious social or technical advantages to specific choices, ar least notfrom within a strictly ecological or evolutionary framework. Therefore, archaeol-ogists must also turn to historical explanations of meaning in material culture inorder to understand the complexity of technical choice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am tremendously grateful to Miriam Srark, who organized rhe symposium framwhich this volume stemmed and whose comments and suggest ions had a pro-found effect on this paper and my views on material culture in general. I wouldalso like to thank the members of my dissertation cornmittee, Dena F. Dincauze,Arthur S.Keene, H. Martin Wobst, and Kevin Sweeney, for their thoughtful com-ments on my writing and research. This research was aided by a Grant-in-Aid ofResearch frorn Sigma Xi, and a Graduate ResearchAward frorn rhe Department ofAnrhropology, University of MassachusettS, Amherst. Pottery sherds were drawnby Maureen Manning-Bernatsky. Finally, I wish to thank David K. Schafer for hismidnight editing, computer wizardry, and undying support. Any fiaws in thiswork are solely my responsibility.

7

Technological Patterning and Social Boundaries:Ceramic Variability in Southern New England, A.D. 1000-1675

ROBERT G. GOODBY

S ocial boundaries are abstractions and ideological constructs, recognized dif-ferendy and for different reasons by people on the basis of their perceivedidentity, interests, and social context. The importance of this point in thesearch for social boundaries in material culture has been underappreciated. Thetechnological and decorative sryles of seventeenth-century Native American ce-ramics from southeastern New England refiect the extent to which social bound-aries and social identity were contested and transformed in response to Englishcolonialism and grawing internal tensions within and between native societies,and i llustrate the complexi ty of the relationship between social boundaries andtechnological patterning.Archaeologists have long used the study of style to identify social or cultural

boundaries and discrete social or ethnic groups in the pastoRecently, the conceptof style itselfhas become the topic ofdebate, with the recognition that sryle iscon-sciously manipulated by people and not a passive reflection of social identity, thatsome style served asa medium of communication (Wobst 1977), and that "sryle"resides in many levelsof material culture, not just in form and decoration. Recog-nizing the problernatic relationship berween "expressive" sryle and social groups,archaeologists have recendy begun to search for lessconsciously employed styles,styles of technical choice (e.g. , Chilron 1996) or isochrestic variation (Sackett1990) that are held to refiect unconscious norms held by members of particular so-cieties. Since technological style or patterns of isochrestic variation are (presurn-ably) not manipulated for individual ends but refiect the learned and ingrained be-