Cross-mending Northeastern Ceramic Typologies

CROSS-MENDING NORTHEASTERN CERAMIC TYPOLOGIES

Jonathan M. Lizee
Department of Anthropology
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut

Illustrations by Tara Prindle

Hypertext by Thomas Plunkett

Paper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Anthropological Association, Geneseo, New York.

Revised 3.12.95

Technical Note: To view the tables included in this report, you must be using a client which supports the table function, such as Netscape 1.1b+ or Mosaic 2.08+.

Abstract

In Late Woodland and Contact Period studies, ceramics are often used to identify proto-historic and historic period tribal groups. The most common methods of analysis have been directed towards identifying differences between regions and/or culture groups using statistical methods which identify levels of stylistic distinctiveness. In the northeast, Late Woodland studies have attempted to isolate singular and groups of ceramic attributes which are considered ethnic markers for proto- historic and Contact Period Iroquoian (and to a lesser extent, Algonquian) tribes. As one result, the ceramic typologies of the northeast are difficult to compare at the pan-regional or cross- cultural levels. This analytical dilemma impedes any attempt to reconstruct prehistoric exchange / interaction networks beyond the level of the river drainage or across drainages. In this paper, ceramic types will be deconstructed and ceramic data will be used to construct an information / exchange model which can be tested using complementary settlement and lithic data.

Introduction

Across the northeast, archaeologists have relied extensively on ceramic data in discussions of tribal evolution (Williams 1972 [Mohegan]; McBride 1990 [Pequot]; Niemczycki 1984 [Seneca and Cayuga]; Bradley 1987 [Onondaga]). Most regional studies have focused on developments within local Owasco and Iroquois (New York) and Windsor (southern New England) traditions related to the development of socio-political groups (Figure 1). In southern New England, archaeologists search for archaeological indicators representing the evolution of the Mohegan, Pequot, Narragansett and Wampanoag tribes of the Algonquian culture. In New York state, several excellent studies have presented ceramic data which appear to illustrate the formation of Cayuga, Seneca, Onondaga, and Mohawk Iroquois tribes. While internal developments have been well defined in both regions using numerical techniques (coefficients of similarity, principal components analysis, and multi-dimensional scaling), the goals have been directed towards demonstrating variation between sites and regions relating to only one or two ethnic groups within the larger construct of the Iroquois or Algonquian culture groups. In this framework, regional and sub-regional ceramic variation are used to describe levels of inter-regional exchange at the social, economic, and political levels within and between neighboring Iroquois and Algonquian culture groups. At a larger macro-regional level, no attention has been directed towards identifying social or economic exchange networks between the Iroquois and the Algonquian groups. Our current understanding of the archaeological data has relied on material indicators like lithics (from New York) and marine shell (from southern New England) to describe regional economic exchange. In contrast, ceramics found in southern New England which do not match classic type descriptions have been described as trade items (Rouse 1947; Lavin 1980), as indicators of Iroquois "influence", or even as indicators of migration (Rouse 1947; Byers and Rouse 1960; Lavin 1980). Results of materials analysis of Windsor Tradition ceramics using neutron activation analysis has largely eliminated migration and trade as factors in the transmission of stylistic data (Lizee, Neff, and Glascock 1993).

Research Problem

At the local level, archaeologists have used ceramic data as indicators of interaction/exchange between Algonquian and Iroquois groups at a very general level. The elaborate ceramic assemblage from the Contact Period Mohegan (Algonquian) village of Fort Shantok provides one example the problems with using stylistic attribute clusters as ethnic markers (Figure 2). Originally, Rouse (1947) classified the ceramics from Fort Shantok as a distinct tradition, Shantok. At the time, Shantok ceramics were considered evidence in support of a migration model in which the Mohegan-Pequot of southeastern Connecticut moved into coastal Connecticut during the 16th century. More recent examination of archaeological and ethnohistoric data have revised this misconception, and promoted in situ development. Re- examination of the stylistic data using numerical techniques (Jaccard's coefficient of similarity and multi-dimensional scaling) support the in situ model and identified Shantok design elements as developing from the local Windsor Tradition.

At the local level, stylistic and morphological ceramic attributes have proven useful in distinguishing possible ethnic groups. Some of the more commonly cited attributes are presented in Table 1. This table lists attributes that are often described as unique to historic tribal groups. Comparison at the pan- regional level presents a different picture. Castellations, notched collars, frilled collars, triangular design motifs appear to cross linguistic, ethnic, and presumably cultural boundaries (Figures 3-8).

Table 1. Late Woodland/Contact Period Ceramic Attributes and Traditions

Attributes	Iroquois Tradition	Algonquian Tradition
	Traditions and Tribal Groups
Castellations	Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga	Mohegan, Narragansett, Wampanoag
Effigies	Seneca, Onondaga	Mohegan, Narragansett
Triangular Designs	Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, St. Lawrence	Mohegan, Pequot, Narragansett, Wampanoag
Decorated Collars	Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, St. Lawrence	Mohegan, Pequot, Narragansett, Wampanoag
Notched Collars	Mohawk, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, St. Lawrence	Mohegan, Pequot, Narragansett, Wampanoag
Frilled Collars	Onondaga, Saint Lawrence, Susquehannock	Mohegan, Narragansett

It is strange to note that ceramic patterns have been used to identify political and social changes within two distinct culture groups but are rarely used to describe difference or similarities between groups where the expected differences would presumably be greater. As a result, inter-regional exchange models which cross linguistic or cultural lines are of relatively low resolution. For example, in the archaeological literature of New England, there are numerous references to Owasco and Iroquois ceramics found at Late Woodland sites, but I have found no references in the literature of New York (or anywhere in the northeast) describing the discovery of Windsor Tradition pottery. As a result, there are scores of references implying "Iroquois- influence" (a term I have come to despise) in New England. Increases in non-local lithic materials during the Late Woodland Period has also been used to support a uni-directional model describing both the flow of information and material culture into southern New England.

Ceramic Data

To better assess problems with regional exchange models, a necessary first step is a realignment of the ceramic typologies. Table 2 presents a skeletal framework of Late Woodland ceramic types and associated tribal groups. By comparing general stylistic and morphological attributes, pan-regional horizons can be identified which cross cultural boundaries.

When illustrations and/or published descriptions of types are compared, there are obvious similarities between Iroquois and Windsor tradition ceramics. At first glance, the typology for New York State appears more complex than that used in New England. More ethnic groups and more diagnostic pottery types are found in New York. Within the New England typology, archaeologists have accepted that within each type there is a recognized degree of variation. For example, the Niantic and Shantok ceramics include castellated and non-castellated forms. Within the Shantok type there are frilled and non-frilled forms (Figures 3-5) . Within Hackney Pond there are notched and un- notched forms. All three types include triangular design elements as the core decoration. If we were to adhere to rigid type classification in the northeast, a majority of the Fort Shantok (Mohegan) assemblage would be classified as Iroquoian (probably as Mohawk).

Table 2. Comparable Ceramic Types and Culture Groups

Stylistic Modes	Type Names	Tribal Groups
Castellated / Effigies	Cayuga Horizontal, Shantok Castellated	Cayuga, Seneca, Mohegan, Narragansett, Wampanoag
Castellated Rim / Notched Collar	Cayuga Horizontal, Niantic, Shantok Castellated, Shultz Incised, Washington Boro Incised, Richmond Incised, Syracuse Incised, Salem Incised, Huron Incised	Cayuga, proto-Mohegan, proto-Pequot, proto-Onondaga, Susquehannock, St. Lawrence, Narragansett
Frilled / Notched Collar	Seneca Notched, Shantok Castellated, Dutch Hollow Incised, Seneca Barbed Collar, Genoa Frilled, Blue Rock Valenced, Durfee Underlined, Seneca Barbed	Seneca, Mohegan, Narragansett, Wampanoag, Oneida, Susquehannock, St. Lawrence
Non/Low Collars and Incised	Hackney Pond, Ostungo Notched	Mohegan, Pequot, Narragansett, Wampanoag, Mohawk

In many cases, there are obvious similarities which exist between New York and New England ceramics which have been overlooked. The list presented in Table 2 illustrates both the complexity of assigning type names to ceramic assemblages and the regional overlap of ceramic types.

In the Late Woodland, type labels not only serve as shorthand for a range of stylistic attributes, they also serve as cultural/ethnic markers. Archaeologists have perhaps 'hardened' the lines between culture groups who participated in open and far reaching interaction and exchange. Complementary lithic data indicate, between 1,000 and 300 Years BP there is an increase in the proportions of non-local lithic material entering southern New England (Feder 1984; McBride 1984). By around 500 Years BP there is a noticeable increase in marine shell at interior Iroquois sites. While there is material evidence (chert/shell) for exchange between Algonquian and Iroquoian groups, the ceramic data used to support cross-cultural exchange lack a material base. In this respect, the cross-cultural transmission of styles may, represent a gauge of the relative intensity of information and material exchange between groups but not a direct marker of exchange itself.

Castellated vessels appear across a broad horizon from southern Ontario to Cape Cod during the Late Woodland Period (Figures 6 and 7). In southern New England, there is direct evidence for castellation by 1000-800 Years BP in the decorated Windsor Cord Marked and Windsor Brushed types (McBride 1984). While castellations are often considered markers of "Iroquois influence" it is interesting to note that they appear earlier in southern New England than in the Windsor Tradition than in the contemporary Owasco Tradition. Collar notching appears to follow by around 600 Years BP along with a "standardization" of incised and stamped triangular designs. The use of effigies appears to represent one of the final ceramic horizons in the northeast. In southern New England, effigies on vessel collars do not appear until the late 16th- early 17th- centuries. Almost all the published references of effigies in New England are anthropomorphic. In New York state, effigies on vessels include both zoomorphic and anthropomorphic forms.

Perhaps the most striking similarity which cross-cuts linguistic/cultural boundaries is the increased occurrence of shell stamped and incised lines which are arranged into interlocking triangular designs (Figures 3-8). This motif is prevalent among the Iroquois groups of New York and the Algonquian groups of southern New England between approximately 600 and 300 Years BP. During this period, archaeologists have suggested an increase in ceramic variation at the sub-regional level, marking the formation of tribal polities. It has also been suggested that the tribalization of northeastern population was the result of competition and perhaps warfare (Jennings 1984; Trigger 1976). Using this model, ceramic variation should increase and economic exchange in shell and flint should decrease. The social dynamics which have been associated with regional and sub-regional ceramic variation are contradicted by models which describe regional similarity as a product of exchange and interaction (Wobst 1977). This would suggest that economic exchange (flint and marine shell) increased at a time during which populations were consolidating both socially and politically.

A Tentative Information Exchange Model

In the northeastern United States, archaeological investigations focusing on the formation of historic tribal groups have used ceramic distinctiveness to map ethnic territories and levels of interaction. This approach implies that within river drainages or within ethnic groups ceramic production and decoration become standardized. The distinctiveness of ceramics made and used within Iroquois and Algonquian groups have been used informally to suggest changes in the flow of social and/or economic exchange. In reality, the basic suite of ceramic design elements can be found across most of the northeast. In this light, ceramic types are marked by only one or two distinctive attributes. These attributes or clusters of attributes have been used to distinguish Mohegan from Pequot, and Cayuga from Seneca and many others. There have been no systematic studies focusing on the broader stylistic horizons which appear to cross linguistic and cultural boundaries. When unexpected type variants are found in New England they are usually described as "trade sherds" or representing some form of stealthy "Iroquois influence". This tendency has unintentionally fostered a belief that Algonquian/Iroquoian interaction and exchange was traditionally one-sided. In every case, when ceramics are used to describe the development of socio-political groups, the distinctive ceramic attributes are brought to the front and any similarities are considered as "residual" or more often ignored.

What are some possible explanations for pan-regional similarity in the face of sub-regional diversity? The trade of both lithic materials (chert) and marine shell have been well documented. During the Late Woodland and Contact Periods there were networks in place for the exchange of material (Figure 9). I suggest that the material exchange network provided a means of transport and exchange for information as well as material. Figure 10 is a graphic representation of this information exchange model. In this model, as people interact for purposes of material exchange there is the potential for traders to see and hear information which is also carried back and not formally part of the exchange itself. In this sense, the material exchanges between groups provide a mechanism for informational exchange of legends, myths, narratives, symbols, and decorative arts. As archaeologists move outside the bounds of their study regions, there are more similarities than differences in the ceramic traditions of Iroquoian New York and Algonquian New England. Recognition of pan-regional trends in vessel form (globular bodies, constricted necks, collars, castellations) and decoration (triangular designs) could potentially increase our understanding of regional interaction and trade. Since the majority of analytical focus seeks to identify "distinctiveness" the cross-regional similarities are often regarded as "noise".

Conclusions

In many parts of the world, including New York and New England, ceramic data have been used with other archaeological data to construct reasonable and believable models of interaction and exchange. At the boundary of Iroquois and Algonquian territory archaeologists have chosen to fragment or compartmentalize ceramic data along ethnic lines. Ceramic attributes have been used as a gauge of the relative flow of interaction and exchange. This analytical tendency has veiled any attempts to represent interaction or exchange systems as "open" systems in this region because they are considered analogous to systems which controlled rates of material exchange. As more ceramic and other data become available, archaeologists should begin to rethink the role of pottery designs as rigid indicators of otherwise "soft" social systems. The timing and geographic breadth of late ceramic horizons in the northeast suggest a level of information exchange that exceeds current material based models.

References Cited

Bradley, James W.
1987 Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.

Feder, Kenneth
1984 Pots, Plants, and People: The Late Woodland Period of Connecticut. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 47:99-112.

Hayes, Charles F. (editor)
1980 Proceedings of the 1979 Iroquois Pottery Conference. Research Records, No 13, Rochester Museum and Science Center, Rochester.

Jennings, Francis
1984 The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire. W.W. Norton and Company, New York.

Lavin, Lucianne
1986 Pottery Classification and Cultural Models in Southern New England Prehistory. North American Archaeologist 7(1):1-12.

1987 The Windsor Ceramic Tradition in southern New England. North American Archaeologist 8(1):23-40.

1988 The Morgan Site, Rocky Hill, Connecticut: A Late Woodland Farming Community in the Connecticut River Valley. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 51:7-20.

Lizee, Jonathan M., Hector Neff, and Michael Glascock
1993 Clay acquisition and vessel distribution patterns: Neutron activation analysis of Late Windsor and Shantok tradition ceramics from southern New England. Manuscript on file, Research Reactor Facility, University of Missouri, Columbia.

McBride, Kevin A.
1984 Prehistory of the Lower Connecticut River Valley. University Microtext, Ann Arbor.

1990 The Historical Archaeology of the Mashantucket Pequots, 1637-1900: A Preliminary Analysis. In The Pequots in southern New England, The Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation. Edited by L.M. Hauptman and J.D. Wherry, pp. 96-116. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman.

Niemczycki, Mary Ann
1984 The Origin and Development of the Seneca and Cayuga Tribes of New York State. Rochester Museum and Science Service, Research Records No. 17, Rochester.

Ritchie, William A.
1980 The Archaeology of New York State. Harbor Hill Books, Harrison.

Ritchie, William A and Richard S. MacNeish
1949 The Pre-Iroquoian Pottery of New York State. American Antiquity, 15(2):97-124.

Rouse, Irving
1947 Ceramic Traditions and Sequences in Connecticut. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut, 21:10-25.

Smith, Carlyle
1947 Outline of the Archaeology of Coastal New York. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut, 21: 2-9.

Trigger, Bruce G.
1976 The Children of Aataentsic, A History of the Huron People to 1660. McGill-Queen's University Press, Kingston.

Williams, L.E.
1972 Fort Shantok and Fort Corchaug: A Comparative Study of Seventeenth Century Culture Contact in the Long Island Sound Area. University Microtext, Ann Arbor.

Wobst, H. Martin
1977 Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, Charles E. Cleland, editor. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of the northeastern United States showing distribution of culture groups discussed in paper.
Figure 2. Morphological attributes of Shantok Castellated pottery.
Figure 3. Frilled and castellated late Windsor Tradition vessel from the Fort Shantok site. Montville, Connecticut.
Figure 4. Frilled sherds from Fort Shantok (ca. 350-300 Years BP).
Figure 5. Frilled sherds from Fort Shantok (ca. 350-300 Years BP).
Figure 6. Castellated sherds from the Fort Shantok assemblage.
Figure 7. Castellated sherds from the Fort Shantok assemblage.
Figure 8. Collar sherds from the Fort Shantok assemblage.
Figure 9. Diagram showing exchange territory for lithic material and marine shell (ca. 600-300 Years BP).
Figure 10. Proposed information exchange model for pan-regional distribution of attributes and designs.