CHAPTER  1.

1.0 Purpose

The basis of this dissertation is a specific research problem in Northeastern prehistory. During the Terminal Archaic period, 3700-2700 BP, an elaborate burial ceremonial complex is archaeologically identified in southern New England. However, the cultural affinity of this complex is unclear. The initial purpose of this research is to define the associated cultural system and determine its specific adaptive characteristics. The data from this research have led to the setting of secondary goals that are directed toward the establishment models of cultural continuity and coexistence.

1.1 Introduction
 

The organizational approach utilized in this dissertation is designed to assure that the reader is able to better consider the relevant data concerning the Late and Terminal Archaic Periods from various background perspectives. This format allows the reader to process the research data in this archaeological analysis and apply this information, first, from an expanded Northeastern perspective. This is the purpose of sections 2-4. The reader is secondly introduced to the mid range Connecticut perspective in section 5 and 6. Thirdly, in the remaining sections, specific data from the study area are presented as a close range perspective.

The beginning section of this dissertation historically reviews the advances made in Connecticut archaeology, to demonstrate how the field has evolved and directed or influenced the thinking of current research. The academic climate of the last century and a half has had a profound effect upon the study of prehistory and archaeology in Connecticut. In many respects we are where we are today because of various developments in our field on the local as well as the state level. It is therefore important to recognize this history so that we may have a better appreciation of how and why we have come to be where we are. We need to know about past research with its various strengths and limitations and then build upon this data base in an effort to advance the state of the art. At the same time, understanding the evolution of Connecticut's prehistory shall aid us in recognizing persistent patterns in the data and help us identify their origins. A short history of the study of archaeology in Connecticut is therefore important.

1.1a History of Connecticut Archaeology

With the reduction of Native American populations in Connecticut by 1800, there came a fascination with the inhabitants whom we had nearly eliminated. Much of this was in the form of antiquarian studies. Important to such initial accounts and studies were the works of Ezra Stiles in the mid to late 18th century (Stiles 1755-1794), and of his student David Dudley Field (1819). These primary sources were followed by an interest in local histories of the "Indians in our past". This was manifested in works by DeForest (1851) and Brownell (1859), which were dramatized secondary accounts saying more about how we in the mid 19th century felt about the past than about what had actually happened.

One manifestation of this new awareness was a Presidential recognition of the Mohegan sachem Uncas in 1833. Andrew Jackson personally laid the cornerstone in the Royal Burying Ground at Norwich, Connecticut, to honor this native American chief. During this same period, there are several references to "Indian objects" such as a Mohegan basket being donated to the Connecticut Historical Collections, documenting a rise in Indian artifact recognition and collection (Willoughby 1935:86-87).

The first reference to the discovery of archaeological materials within Connecticut came in 1840, on the grounds of the Theological Institute in East Windsor Hill. A soapstone dish, a bird amulet, and several unspecified articles were found by students. Also mentioned is that the site was being washed out of the banks of a meandering river (Willoughby 1935:86).

During the next 80 years, there was a considerable rise in amateur collecting in the state. Collections were predominantly made as surface finds; however, excavations were also conducted. In 1871, a grave with large shell beads, small copper beads, and a few marginella shells, was dug in East Windsor. The collection resides at the State Historical Society in Hartford (Willoughby 1935:87).

After the turn of the century, more consciously directed interest was paid to Connecticut archaeology. Speck's (1909) work of the early 20th century reveal a concentrated effort to preserve ethnohistoric information. In 1922, Moorehead excavated on several Connecticut sites, including the Old Lyme shellheap (Coffin 1963), a site that is important in my study area. In 1927, Norris Bull, with the help of a paid crew, once again investigated this shellheap (Praus 1942) as well as burials in East Windsor (Willoughby 1935:87). Much of this work reflected extremely site specific data and was artifact oriented (Kra 1984:1). Up to the mid 1930's there were no concentrated efforts to coordinate collectors or their collections.

The initial organizing element in Connecticut archaeology was the Archaeological Society of Connecticut (ASC), which began in 1934. It functioned to bring together collectors for the purpose of discovery, comparison, recording, and preservation of the state's prehistory. In cooperation with Yale University, the society stressed education through its bulletin, lectures, and joint Yale-ASC excavations. The Society was an amateur society for its first forty years of history. At about the same time that the amateur community got together, Froelich Rainey (1936) attempted to consolidate ethnohistoric and archaeological data from Connecticut. This was a professional attempt to bring Connecticut archaeology up to the standards set in other adjoining states. He undertook a survey of known archaeological sites in the state and stimulated students to test and record known sites. Alexis Praus was one of Rainey's students and as a result of his professor's recommendation he began excavation of the Old Lyme shellheaps. Rainey's attempt at coordinating the archaeology within the state was less than successful. This is quite apparent from reviewing Griffin's (1952) regional synthesis, where Connecticut is nearly completely disregarded. Although there were more extensive excavations in the 1940's through 1970's (Basto 1937, Bourn 1972, Coffin 1937 1940 1946 1951, Glynn 1953, Rogers 1943, Pope 1952, Praus 1942 & 1945, Russell 1942, Salwen 1966, Sargent 1952, Suggs 1956, Young 1969) little was done to produce regional cultural histories or typologies. A partial exception to this were the works by Rouse (1945 & 1947), Smith (1947), and Byers and Rouse (1960) that primarily dealt with ceramic traditions in Connecticut and were not the more encompassing syntheses of periods within the Connecticut archaeological record. This situation is quite apparent in Snow's (1980) New England volume and accounts for the paucity of pertinent Connecticut data.

In the early 1970's, the Archaeological Society of Connecticut attracted increased professional interest and interaction. Presidents from 1972 to present have all been professionals. Meetings have become increasingly more oriented toward professionals and their students' reporting of research (Kra 1984:2).

Similarly, several long-term regional surveys began in Connecticut during the 1970's. McBride (1984b:6) points out that, "these projects were clear attempts to study prehistoric adaptation and cultural change on a regional level." Funk (1984:129) has appropriately pointed out that, "Anthropological archaeology has come of age in Connecticut." Over the past 15 years, there has been an increased attention paid to regional analysis, regional cultural sequences established through radiometric dating, the intensive gathering of settlement and subsistence data, and formulation of models. Lavin (1984:5) states that, "Connecticut archaeology has become a rigorous scientific discipline, grounded in anthropological theory and advanced techniques of excavation and analysis."

The study with which I have been involved since 1973 and reported herein has been one of several regional and local analyses within the state referred to by Lavin (1984). This dissertation presents a synthesis of the data that have been produced from an intensive local research project undertaken on the eastern shore at the mouth of the Connecticut River in the towns of Lyme and Old Lyme, in the state of Connecticut.

1.2 The Study of the Lowest Connecticut River Valley

The initial research that caused me to become involved in the Archaic and Terminal Archaic Periods began in 1973 with the excavation and analysis of the Ames site in Old Lyme, Connecticut. This was the start of a project (Pfeiffer 1980b) concentrating upon the eastern margins of the mouth of the Connecticut River (Fig. 1.2.1 & Fig.7.1.1). From 1973-1984, three small drainage basins, Eight Mile River, Lieutenant River and Black Hall were surveyed and then specific sites were more thoroughly excavated.

Within these small neighboring drainages, several sites appeared which were of similar age and probable cultural affinity. A cremation cemetery was discovered in 1975. Another was identified in 1981. Subsequent excavations have delineated corresponding habitation sites and special activity sites, that permitted a detailed settlement study for a series of dated components.

As initially conceptualized in early 1980's, this work concentrated upon the Terminal Archaic cremation burial complex and its relation to cultural entities within the study area. This involved the identification of sites that demonstrate either:(1) that the burial assemblage was only related to an ideological subsystem that in turn was integrated into the preexisting Mast Forest Adaptation (Snow1980:245); or (2) that such burial assemblages were one subsystem within a whole independent cultural system. The theoretical development of such hypothetical positions is seen within section 1.4 with the relevant data being discussed within sections 9 and 10 of this dissertation.

The initial focus has undergone some developmental changes to accommodate new data and relevant theoretical questions. The discovery of still older and related mortuary and habitation sites has caused me to reconsider the temporal dimensions of this research problem and to include the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods within this study.

This has inevitably led to some broader questions that are addressed in this dissertation. These are questions concerning; (1) the local expressions of the Lake Forest, Mast Forest (Snow 1980), and River Plain adaptations (Pfeiffer 1984) and how these cultural systems interrelate, (2) the aspect of cultural continuity, and (3) hypotheses for testing inferred continuity.

These particular issues are addressed at the primary stage of analysis at a cultural historical level. This implies that each site or component should be defined as a cultural unit at a specific period (Willey & Phillips 1958). A cultural systems approach (outlined in section 1.4) is then used to define and differentiate the specific cultural entities. Each one of these specific cultural systems is to be considered a localized cultural expression as evidenced within the study area at a particular time. Such entities are referred to as phases. The Willey and Phillips (1958:22) concept of phase, is "an archaeological unit possessing traits sufficiently characteristic to distinguish it from all other units similarly conceived, spatially limited to the order of magnitude of a locality or region and chronologically limited to a brief interval of time". This definition shall hold with a specific clarification, closely approximating Kidder, Jennings and Shook's (1946:9) definition, where Kidder suggests that the phase should be "distinguished from earlier and later manifestations of the cultural development of which it formed a part." Therefore a particular phase shall be distinguished from cultural phases both before and after it. This shall be done in this thesis utilizing the cultural system approach. The result of employing this analytic tool is to establish a clear perspective of cultural relationships through time and between phases.

I have intentionally not applied the term tradition for any cultural manifestation evidenced within the immediate study area due to the overall variation in meaning suggested by most researchers. Within this dissertation I shall use the term tradition at the expanded and mid range perspective since researchers of these areas have already established the practise. I apply the term-tradition-in keeping with Snow (1980:188) and Tuck (1978:30) regarding the terminology that reflects a tradition's adaptive strategy as well as its physiographic setting. In doing so, I am recognizing the extended spatial breadth of such units. Therefore terms as Maritime Archaic, Lake Forest, and Mast Forest have the tradition designation.

Regarding the term tradition, Willey and Phillips (1958:37) point out that there is some confusion in meaning. They indicate that the term, when initially used, had technological implications as well as a "lack of specificity" with respect to a tradition's spatial dimension. More recently, Snow (1980:190) has noted an overall tendency in archaeology for the usage of this term to equate cultural traditions with single artifact classes. While this was not intended by most archaeologists, he asserts that this usage has served to move archaeology away from the cultural systems approach and restricted our assessment of adaptation.

The cultural systems model has been important in directing the research in the study area. This model of culture takes the perspective that culture is a complex behavioral system made up of a broad range of interwoven subsystems or components.

In this dissertation the collection and organization of data is directed toward the definition of adaptation. This term is used to indicate a local culture system that had interacted and articulated with the environments in the study area (Binford 1983:222). This definition views, "adaptation as a local solution to local conditions" (Binford 1983:334). When discussing cultural systems that existed in the study area, adaptation is used in place of the term tradition. By definition, adaptation is specific to geographic setting and thus overcomes the objection that Willey and Phillips (1958) had for the term, tradition. Therefore, the term adaptation will be used in the sections of this dissertation that discuss the cultural manifestations of the study area.

Fig 1.2.1

It is important to recognize that the data used in this field project and subsequent interpretation were produced from (1) site survey, (2) selection of appropriate sites according to period, and (3) large block excavations. This approach attempts to alleviate some of the error encountered from oversimplification and unwarranted generalization produced by survey applications alone. As a direct result of this choice, the area of study is quite small, approximately 6500 hectares. I have opted to know a small area well and to have a reasonable chance of developing a detailed overview of its associated parts. The alternative would have been to look at a broad area employing survey techniques that provide marginal culture history and systems information.

This is not to say that there is no room for thorough systematic survey. Survey is excellent for establishing the existence of sites and their size. However, it becomes less accurate in assessing cultural affinity, internal structure and the range of internal site diversity. Because of this, there is the potential for making sweeping statements based upon a few items rather than on assemblages. In this dissertation, unless otherwise noted, it will be apparent that block excavations were carried out at the sites. This was done in order to build local cultural models based upon patterns of data rather than upon a few independent and isolated survey data. Dincauze (1976:137) has pointed out the need for selecting sites where specific kinds of data can be gathered and which employ "wide-exposure excavation techniques".

In the study area initial survey techniques concentrated upon extensive informant questioning and follow-up field testing. Contacts with local amateur archaeologists, educators, contractors, landowners, and other informants was of tremendous benefit, permitting a preliminary assessment of the study area.

Survey employing document review, study of maps and aerial photographs proved to be very useful (Pfeiffer 1982a, 1983). Walking survey and test pitting were also employed with the usual less spectacular results. After a short time of work within the area, a predictive model of generalized prehistoric occupation was formed. I noted potentially important locational attributes such as association with water sources (from rivers to upland wetland), soil type and slope denoting drainage characteristics, potential protection from adverse weather (as in cliffs or overhangs), and obvious availability of resources.

Over the course of the eleven years of my research, these survey techniques permitted access to the coastal, lacustrine, riverine lowlands, riverine uplands, upland wetland, and upland environmental regions without bias to particular zones. Once sites were identified, some were chosen for having potential for containing information pertinent to a particular period or specific archaeological question. Accordingly, excavation followed.

I cannot overemphasize the value of informant data. While these data were not always specifically accurate, about two-thirds of the best sites were already known. However, these were not recorded in any comprehensive professional format or index. The survey proved very successful and coupled with the field techniques of test pitting and excavation generated useful and significant data.

1.4 The Theoretical Foundation of the Research Problem

Willey and Phillips (1958:2) advanced the dictum that "American archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing." Hopefully, the spirit of this pronouncement is embodied within this dissertation. The underlying paradigm through which this research was designed and observations made has gone beyond merely attempting to reconstruct culture history (Binford 1983:406). This thesis is not focussed upon tool types and taxomonic differentiation. The totality of material culture, not only diagnostic artifacts, must be viewed as representative of past cultural systems (Taylor 1948; Binford 1962,1983; Deetz 1971). As Taylor(1948) in the conjunctive approach and Binford (1965:203-210) pointed out, the analysis of archaeological remains can lead to the distinction of technological, economical, social, and ideological subsystems or components of culture. A cultural system can be defined by describing its subsystems and components, together with the various kinds of exchanges and influences that occur between these subunits as well as how such subsystems interrelate to environmental aspects. The relationships between these determine the way in which the system develops, and the way in which it reacts to changes in the environment (White 1959:390). For the archaeologist this implies a far wider approach to the gathering of relevant data and the scope of the subsequent analysis (Harris 1968:685; Binford 1962). Artifacts, in this view, are interrelated components of culture and have their primary functional context in different operational subsystems of the total cultural system. Artifacts are representatives of the culture system from which they came and exhibit differences and similarities depending upon the structure of the culture system. Chang (1968:9) asserted that artifacts were to be regarded not as closed systems themselves, but as elements of greater systems and indicators of complex relationship. "Residential residues are not considered simply as indicators of food habits, architectural patterns, or trash throwing customs, but as contexts of social and cultural activities; and decorative arts are viewed as integral elements of the intellectual and/or practical life."

Within this expanded view, the cultural systems model is an effective methodological tool that may facilitate the clear definition of particular cultural manifestations. Not only may it facilitate detailed individual cultural definition by modeling the inner workings of a system, but it also may permit the formulation of distinctions enabling us to contrast and compare different cultural entities. Finally, the use of the approach can produce a more detailed format to trace cultural changes over time. In these aspects the approach goes far beyond the old paradigm's trait list (Snow 1980:219-221).

The fundamental theory of science that has directed much of traditional archaeology was that "every object existing in nature had a particular meaning or significance inherent within it" (Hill 1972:64). Each item within the archaeological record contained a single truth. It was the archaeologist's task to perceive the inherent meaning. These pieces of data inevitably controlled the nature of hypotheses that a researcher would generate. Thus, "hypotheses were statements of the qualities in the data that archaeologists thought they perceived" (Hill 1972:65). Knowledge of the past had been generated through direct observation of material objects in the archaeological record. Therefore, traditional archaeology has concentrated upon technological aspects and has been unable to address significantly the social and ideological aspects of culture.

The material cultural and thus technological bias inherent within the archaeological record should not preclude our modeling of past cultures within the same framework as employed when analyzing ethnographically present ones. The basis of the "new archaeology" has been an anthropological approach, steeped in a cultural ecological perspective (White 1949; 1959; Steward 1955:36; Binford 1962; 1967). This perspective takes the broadest view of how human populations, other living organisms, and the physical surroundings form an integrated system.

This dissertation's approach has encompassed these considerations with regard to methodology as well as interpretation. Research methods have been oriented towards the recovery of more than individual artifacts of traditional diagnostic value. The focus of this study is the patterning of various categories of artifacts and ecofacts in the site and study area. This certainly includes stone tools, however, types are defined as they occur within the site and study area not as they have been defined and subsequently borrowed from other regional contexts (Rouse 1960). Other artifacts of tremendous informational value are cultural features as hearths, post molds, storage pits, burial pits, and refuse or trash pits. Recovery techniques have also been implemented to generate site information pertaining to "non diagnostic elements" (Binford 1983:406). Screening and flotation have been instrumental in defining important cultural ecological relationships. The relationship between sites has been analyzed in order that settlement patterns are better understood and to facilitate reconstruction of specific culture systems.

My purpose in bringing out the methods and techniques employed to recover certain kinds of data within this study is not to demonstrate the specific nature of its sophistication. The point is that the cultural systems paradigm requires a broader focus and a particular research design (Hempel 1966:11). The paradigm under which the research is formulated in many respects controls the outcome and breadth of the results (Hempel 1966:16; Watson LaBlanc and Redman 1971:115). Since my view of culture and the archaeological record is systems oriented, a particular research design and interpretation are necessitated.

Within this dissertation there is a complex ideological component. This is not because I take the position of the ideational anthropologist (Thomas 1979:107) and suggest that a culture is determined by philosophical and metaphysical causes. Nor, do I offer a thesis based upon the archaeology of religion. The nature of some of the data generated from this research directly relates to the ideological subsystem. There is a significant ideological component to several of the sites discovered within the study area. Such sites are cemeteries that simultaneously are associated with habitation loci. The opportunity for this research to review burial sites permits access to various parts of the ideological subsystem. While we are unable to excavate beliefs, armed with interpretive skills based on anthropology and ethnology (Watson, Leblanc, and Redman 1971:116), statements concerning this ideological component can and should be made (Snow 1980:17). Because of the burial's direct association with habitation components there are also direct relationships with the other subsystems of the culture. This has given this research a broader cultural systems foundation than has been generated elsewhere in southern New England. Part of this must be considered the benefits of conducting research based on thorough an intensive analysis of data from a defined locality or region.
 

1.4a The Strength of Local Analysis as a Methodological Tool

The issue of how sites and components relate will be a developing theme in sections 2-5 of this dissertation. A major thrust of the background introduction of this dissertation is to show a deficiency in the current level of information. The assertion is that a majority of the existing data were collected with a bias toward the study of material culture and technology. These data were generated from research projects that were exclusively oriented toward culture history. As Hempel (1966:11) points out, to formulate a research project, there needs to be; a conscious statement of purpose, a decision which data are relevant, and a selection of an appropriate research design. Many of the studies cited in the background were conceived during a period in archaeology's history when there was little consideration paid to a culture systems model, ecology, or for that matter, adaptation. With few exceptions these studies are incapable of satisfactorily answering the type of questions posed in the beginning of the thesis. Beyond this there has been at times an inconsistency in the source of the data . Working within the scientific approach requires that one conducts research in a controlled environment. The product is data that are internally consistent and useful in testing hypotheses. When utilizing this kind of data in various manipulations, the outcome is more likely to be replicable, patterned, and culturally significant. In accordance with the requirement of internal consistency archaeological data should be collected from a specific study area. The study of adaptation at a close range requires that observation be made at the level to which real cultural units had adapted. Theoretically this would approach the prehistoric culture's home range or territory. Therefore, while initially important to consider the Northeast, northern and southern New England, and Connecticut, these regions represent macro-environments to which no particular prehistoric culture system had ever adapted. Analysis of localities better approximates prehistoric use of space and associated adaptive patterns (Willey and Phillips 1958:18). I use the term local analysis in this dissertation in keeping with the Willey and Phillips (1958) definition of locality. This approach for Connecticut has led to a discernable refinement in technique and analysis oriented toward a specific anthropological hypothesis. We are employing multi-disciplinary methods of study to accomplish this and are involved directly in testing hypotheses on local and regional levels as Dincauze (1976:138) has urged.

Within this enlightened backdrop, archaeologists in Connecticut have come to look at particular issues of the Late and Terminal Archaic periods in different ways. We are now asking what kind of cultural relationships are involved when we perceive changes within the archaeological record (Taylor 1948). How did this apparent sequence come to be? What is the nature of the production of this archaeological record (Schiffer 1976; Binford 1978; Gould 1978)? We begin to look at the archaeological record as a consequence of particular processes, only some of which are cultural (Gould 1978, Schiffer 1976, Binford 1983). We begin to realize that there are severe limitations and imperfections in the archaeological record and likewise we ourselves as researchers have biases and restricted views that may cause us not to ask the right questions, pose the appropriate hypotheses, or design the right tests. This has had a humbling effect upon archaeological research. It brings to the forefront the imperfection and built-in biases of which our field must be aware and that it must accommodate.

Connecticut archaeologists have been brought to the point where we accept less for granted and organize our research in such a way that we start from the particular and slowly proceed toward the broader and more complex issues of anthropology. We are finding in Connecticut that to accurately define adaptation requires working on the local level. Sweeping broad scope--expanded range generalizations are imprecise. These approaches are approximations at best and are incapable of answering most questions concerning a specific cultural system (Gould 1980:258). This is why the trend in Connecticut archaeology has been toward intensive local and regional studies. It is also why the current literature reflects so much variability. To paraphrase Gould (1980:258), even though it would be nice to make high level general explanation, we must force ourselves to the more mundane tasks of compiling empirical bases which support such explanation. This demands that we in Connecticut work at such local levels and slowly, as the base becomes truly firm, move to the larger, broader scope, higher level questions and explanation.

By employing such approaches, Connecticut archaeologists have been making some important contributions. On the other hand, there have been some trends which raise my concern.

As archaeologists have become increasingly involved in studies within the Late and Terminal Archaic periods, a conscious attempt has been made to subdivide the array of sites, components, and assemblages into temporal phases. Such splitting has to a degree been a by-product of radiometric dating achievements. I suggest that the existence of phases should not be founded or initially conceptualized upon radiometric dates alone.

Radiocarbon dating has played a valuable role in the archaeology of the Northeast in the last ten to fifteen years. In just sheer numbers of dates there has been a staggering increase. Whereas radiocarbon dating has been beneficial in calibrating our sequences, it has not necessarily brought about a better method of seriating events than has the law of superposition. Some words of caution pertaining to radiocarbon dating methods are therefore in order, prior to the main topic of discussion within this paper. I point out four considerations:

1) A small project conducted by me with the 14C samples from the Griffin site (Pfeiffer 1989) showed a distinct chronological variance on identical split samples sent to different dating laboratories. Identical field samples that were split in half and sent to Geochron and the Smithsonian for age determination generated differences up to 550 years. Therefore, comparing dates and associated components between labs and sequencing their results may not necessarily be a valid approach. What may be viewed as differences in time depth may actually be the result of laboratory procedure. Therefore, ordering of such dates may not represent an actual chronological occurrence but could potentially be the ranking of laboratory efficiency.

2) Of the utmost importance in the 14C age determination is the archaeological association of the dated organic matter. Great caution should be applied here. Field experience and sufficient area excavated are major considerations, for without these it is difficult to have a genuine knowledge from where a sample is taken and therefore to know what was and what was not associated.

3) Another point is that radiocarbon age determinations are a tool and not a guiding light. Increasingly archaeologists have become less and less proficient field analysts and have opted to let the radiocarbon date "tell us." This approach has restricted our view of the archaeological record much in the same way in which the typological approach was and is being misused. A site, a component, or an association must stand on its own and permit the organizing element to flow from it. Order must not be imposed from a preconceived perspective just as within the scientific approach independent tests of our hypotheses are requisite.

4) Finally, with all this said about radiocarbon dating, there are no good or bad dates but rather misconceived and poorly understood associations. It is the responsibility of today's archaeologist to understand the internal relationships within a particular situation and then with dating techniques, put temporal flesh on the bones.

Throughout this paper the element of temporal positioning is discussed and incorporated at various interpretive levels. The chronological placement of sites, cultural components, and the formulation of phases is given within the text as the radiometric date along with its corresponding laboratory number. Such age determinations are in years BP. and are not calibrated. For each section of this dissertation that pertain to the Northeast, Connecticut, and the study area there is a table that lists the sample number, the laboratory radiometric date in BP. with the standard deviation, and the calibration of these dates. The purpose of calibrating dates is that these correspond more accurately to actual calendar years than the conventional radiocarbon age as presented in the text. These calibrations are performed by using the CALIB program file #2 that applies to non-marine samples to 8100 BP. as established by Stuiver and Reimer (1986). Calibrations of the radiometric dates used in this study are limited to those dates for which there are published laboratory numbers.
 

1.4b Issues and Dependent Aspects

The original research question which initiated this study was posed at the very beginning of this dissertation in the statement of purpose . Specifically briefly restated here, was there evidence to support the formulation of a complete and independent culture system which related to the Broad Spear ceremonial complex?

Snow (1980:239-240) proposed a southern New England Terminal Archaic period cultural model which deviated from the model generated in New York and elsewhere outside of New England. The basis for such a formulation was that there were missing data pertaining to economical, social, and technological subsystems which related to the Broad Spear complex. He alternatively posed that the Broad Spear complex was part of the already established Mast Forest adaptation. Clearly restated, Snow (1980:247) saw the Broad Spear complex as purely an ideological subsystem which had been grafted onto the southern New England cultures which were employing the Mast Forest mode of adaptation. He further suggested, (1980:248) that this Mast Forest tradition reached northward out of southern New England and caused the Maritime Archaic and Lake Forest Archaic tradition to spatially readjust or disappear.

Other questions arose as data were amassed from the study area. During the Late Archaic, southern New England has been characterized as exhibiting a narrow stemmed, Mast Forest tradition (Dincauze 1975, Snow 1980). How does the data from the study area relate to the aspect of Lake Forest-Mast Forest zone of tension theory (Snow 1980:227) and Dincauze's (1975:23-24) assertion of no Lake Forest-Laurentian in southern New England? Finally, on the basis of this specific local study, are there any reasons for conceptualizing the local cultural/temporal model in different ways?

1.4c An Approach to the Solution of the Problem

If the Broad Spear burial complex was to be defined as part of a separate culture system, habitation sites, workshops, and special task sites had to be found in addition to the burial loci. Only from these contexts could I find information relating to the other cultural subsystems, and thus show the existence of a complete culture system. The task in the study area was to find habitation loci associated with Broad Spear artifacts and then define related technological, economical, social, and ideological subsystems. Therefore, to move beyond defining the Broad Spear phenomenon as a complex, I had to establish the presence of all subsystems (Sanger 1975:73).

Dr. John E. Pfeiffer