2.0 Background to the Northeastern Late Archaic Period

This chapter presents existing data and interpretation as a current assessment of the Late Archaic Period in the Northeast. This is done to establish an expanded-range background to which the data of this specific regional analysis may be compared. It also serves to illustrate the variability of adaptation seen in the Northeast during a relatively short period of time. A special note should be made that the boundaries between such zones of adaptation were not concrete barriers. As Williams (1974:107) and Pfeiffer I(1982:122) suggest, they were likely crossed by both people and cultural information. It is therefore important to know the cultural systems that were outside but adjacent the lowest Connecticut Valley study area. It is reasonable to consider that the hunter-gatherer groups that had adapted to southern Connecticut and this specific study area were probably similar in some ways to ethnographic hunter-gatherer groups (Binford,1981; Lee and Devore,1972; Chagnon, 1970) with regard to relationships with neighboring peoples. There is supportive evidence, therefore, that ethnographic groups had a good idea of other groups around them. Because of this, it is appropriate to consider the neighboring regions and associated cultural patterns around the study area as part of a significant cultural environment. This background study helps clarify the cultural environment to which southern New England populations had to adapt.

2.1 The Northeastern Late Archaic Period

The Northeastern Late Archaic Period as outlined by Snow (1980) has been dated between 6000 - 3700 years BP. There were three generalized cultural traditions that occupied diverse environmental zones of the Northeast within this time span.

The first was the Maritime Archaic tradition, which was located in coastal Maine, New Brunswick, coastal sections of the maritime provinces, Quebec, Labrador, and Newfoundland coastlines that border the Gulf of Saint Lawrence (Snow 1980; Tuck 1978). Its temporal range was approximately 7000-3000 BP, spanning the Middle Archaic through the Terminal Archaic periods (Tuck 1978:34). Snow (1980:190-201) and Tuck (1978:32-34) saw this tradition as developing from Early Archaic cultures and abruptly disappearing from northern New England toward the end of the Terminal Archaic (Funk 1983). Snow (1980:248) characterized this disappearance as a "debilitating readjustment".

The second tradition viewed in the Northeast was initially identified by a series of projectile point styles of the Laurentian tradition (Ritchie 1969a:79-104), or Lake Forest tradition (Snow 1980:216; Tuck 1978:30). Ritchie (1938) introduced the concept of the Laurentian tradition for upstate New York and described three phases: (1) Vergennes,(2) Brewerton, and (3) Vosburg.

Besides regional differences, it is the general consensus that there are probably temporal differences among these phases as well. In this view Vergennes is seen as being the oldest and Vosburg and Brewerton are considered to be nearly contemporaneous.

Snow (1980:219) looked at this Laurentian tradition as a small local manifestation of a broad Lake Forest tradition, a cultural system based on hunting and gathering strategies. Snow suggested that the Lake Forest Archaic was an interior cultural expression. Here groups of people would congregate at a time of plentiful seasonal food availability and break up into smaller bands at less productive times. Such a settlement pattern would be best described as central-based wandering. Its regional distribution has been defined as interior northern New England and New York (Dincauze 1975, Snow 1980, Funk 1983). However, Funk (1988:28) has rethought this issue and has accordingly added the southern Connecticut expression.

During the 1960's and 1970`s archaeologists predominantly associated "Laurentian" with projectile points and ground stone tools. Ritchie (1969a:79) established a trait list comprised of the gouge, adze, plummet, ground slate points and knives, including the semi-lunar knife or ulu, simple forms of the bannerstone, a variety of chipped stone projectile points that were mainly broad-bladed and side-notched forms, and the barbed point.

Ritchie viewed the difference among the three phases of the Laurentian as variations within this trait list. The existence or exclusion of Vosburg, Otter Creek of the Vergennes Phase, and Brewerton projectile points has become the major method of phase identification. Snow (1980) more recently suggested that we should expect variations in the local expression of such complexes.

Instead of attempting to fill the trait list we should try to explain differences as consequences of alternative adaptations (Sanger et al. 1977). This line of reasoning has led Tuck 1978:30) and, more recently, Snow (1980:219) to consider Laurentian as part of a more generalized Lake Forest tradition.

The first appearance of the Lake Forest tradition was in the final centuries of the Middle Archaic (Snow 1980:220) -- the diagnostic broad side-notched point type being seen and dated at 6300 BP. However, the entire assemblage of the Vergennes phase as a Laurentian complex did not appear for another six hundred years until around 5700 BP (Tuck 1978). Funk (1988) has suggested that it may be even later than that. Funk (1988) also suggests that the pre-Vergennes phase really will not be viable until a complete assemblage is defined. Therefore the 6300 BP material has been defined as "Proto-Laurentian".

The third tradition seen during the Late Archaic period has been termed the Mast Forest tradition (Snow 1980:223) or Piedmont tradition (Funk 1983:324). Funk (1983:324) states that, it is distributed south of the Lake Forest zone and dates toward the end of the Late Archaic at 4500-3800 BP. The boundary between the Mast Forest and Lake Forest zone as Snow (1980:226) suggested was along the 20% oak isopoll. This distinctly positioned southern New England within the Mast Forest zone and well outside the Lake Forest zone.

Two of these three Late Archaic traditions have clear expression in the study area. The Maritime Archaic has less direct influence on how we are to envision the local Late Archaic. Yet within the Maritime Archaic culture system there are many subsystem similarities with Lake Forest that make it necessary to understand its regional expression.

2.2 The Maritime Archaic Tradition

The Maritime Archaic tradition was oriented toward marine resources. Yet as a culture system it shared many subsystems with the Lake Forest tradition (Snow 1980:216). Its earliest traces appear in Labrador at the L'Anse Amour site where it was dated by two 14C samples tightly corresponding to just prior to the 7th millennium BP (Tuck 1978:33).

Elements in its technological subsystem are well described by Willoughby (1935:51-59) and formalized as a cohesive subsystem in Snow's (1980) work. Within the tool kit are adzes, gouges, axes, plummets, fire kits of pyrite and chert, slate tools, chipped stone, antler, and bone as well as swordfish bills or rostra (Snow:191-215). Ulus appeared in the earliest dated sites but disappear from the tool inventory later on. Similarly, gouges tend to be less deeply grooved as the adaptation draws toward its end.

Projectile points are broad-bladed stemmed forms made of local felsites and exotic Ramah and Mistasini "chert". This material is actually very fine-grained quartzite or chalcedony. The non-lithic industry preserved within these sites indicates that toggling and barbed harpoons were used. There were also needles and awls, suggesting the manufacture of garments.

As an indicator of the ideological subsystem, burial practices are very well known and documented by sites in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Maine. Important Maritime Archaic burial sites are Port-au-Choix, Cow Point, Turner Farm, Hathaway, and Eddington Bend. The burial complex of the Maritime Archaic was initially discovered in the late nineteenth century and was investigated by Moorehead (1913, 1914, 1922) in the first decade of the twentieth century (Willoughby 1935). The Moorehead complex, as it came to be known, was the mortuary subsystem of the Maritime Archaic tradition (Snow 1980:216). At Port au Choix, a site that had excellent preservation conditions, there were primary burials of the "Moorehead complex" which had been covered with red ocher and had artifacts of stone, bone, antler, and tusk (Tuck 1978:34 Snow 1980:191). Only the red ocher and stone artifacts have been found in the Maine burials. This pattern may be due to poor preservation in the acid soils. Elaborate burial ceremonialism is indicated by the evidence generated at Moorehead complex sites. Subsistence information is provided by material from ceremonial sites, but more directly from habitation areas. Artifactual material cross-references both types of sites, and we therefore have insights into more than the ideological subsystems.

With respect to the economic subsystem, there is a strong suggestion of marine sea-hunting and a specialized technology that accompanied it. At Turner Farm (Bourque 1975), the Maritime Archaic component was dated at 4450 BP. Swordfish rostra, slate bayonets, toggled harpoons, fish hooks, and heavy ground stone tools such as adzes and gouges were found at this Maine site . The heavy ground stone tools were probably used to produce large dugout canoes, not unlike the ones used in marine hunting off of the Northwest coast of North America. Snow (1980:198) suggests that large numbers of hunters would go out in open waters to catch both marine mammals and swordfish. Reynolds (1978:102) describes similar marine voyaging by the historic Beothuk in less substantial craft. Thus for the Maritime Archaic, sea-hunting was important at coastal sites. The evidence from these same coastal sites points to a light use of shellfish resources. Shellfishing probably did not become a very important activity until fifteen hundred to two thousand years later in central coastal Maine (Snow 1980:197). Associated with these coastal sites are several interior habitations. Hirundo, (Sanger 1973:26; Sanger el al. 1977:464) an interior site located on the rapids of a tributary of the Penobscot River, has been dated at 4295 + 95 BP [SI-1249]. This site was likely a fishing station for shad, alewife and salmon. The ground stone components to which the date relates are very reminiscent of cemetery specimens and cross-associate with the coastal sites (Sanger 1973:28).

The settlement pattern as hypothesized by Snow (1980:211) was a central base wandering pattern. Small family bands would come together in the semi-permanent sites and segment into small nuclear family units during periods of low food productivity. The total seasonal round, which is central to Cleland's (1976) focal-diffuse continuum, is not perfectly known, since all site types associated in the settlement cycle have not been discovered. Snow (1980:211) suggests that a diffuse adaptive pattern is evidenced in the Maritime Archaic system. The cross-referencing of artifactual assemblages and burials, from interior and coastal sites of the Maritime Archaic has permitted this hypothetical reconstruction. "The correlation of the habitation to ceremonial sites and the identification of interior to coastline sites have enabled archaeologists to say more about the cultural system here than anywhere else in the Northeast" (Snow 1980:211). Coupled with the systems information are dates which span the period from 5165 + 185 BP [SI-878] from Hathaway to 3630 + 135 BP [SI-188] from Cow Point in New Brunswick. The last date of 3230 BP from Port-au-Choix in Newfoundland is used by Tuck (1978:34) to show a fourth millennium BP "wasting" of the Maritime Archaic populations. He sees this as happening due to the environmentally stimulated southward movement of pre-Dorset Eskimo groups into Labrador. Simultaneously, pressure from the interior of Canada (Canadian Shield) was pushing the Lake Forest Archaic and Maritime Archaic peoples out of interior and coastal regions. Bourque(1975:43), Sanger(1975:73) and Snow (1980:248) further suggest a northward intrusion into the Maritime Archaic regions by peoples from southern New England in the mid-fourth millennium BP.

Figure 2.2.1 Northeastern Maritime and Lake Forest Archaic Dates and Calibrations
 

Section 2.2
 

Site	Laboratory Lab # Date	Cal BP	Cal BC	Max/Min BP	Max/Min BC
Hirundo        Si1249	4295+95	4863	2914	4914-4731	3032-2782
Hathaway      Si878	5165+185	5939	3990	6182-5729	4233-3780
Cow Pt.          Si188	3630+135	3976,3943,3936	2027,1994,1987	4146-3734	2197-1785
Section 2.3
OblandrI A  A2251	5010+130	5735	3786	5929-5639	3980-3690
Section 2.3a
Otter Ck 2      I6349	5070+210	5891,5799,5769	3942,3850,3820	6165-5597	3980-3690
McCulley 1   I5524	5730+110	6606,6594,6534	4657,4645,4585	6721-6409	4772-4460
Section 2.3b
O'Neil               I424	4000+210	4513,4490,4448	2564,2541,2499	4835-4149	2886-2200
O'Neil            Y1273	3960+100	4419	2470	4539-4289	2590-2340
Camelot2 GX10460	4795+230	5577,5513,5491	3628,3564,3542	5848-5299	3899-3350
Neville       GX1749	4390+180	4980,4915,4889	3031,2966,2940	5299-4733	3359-2784
Hornblr2      Y1530	4220+160	4834,4743,4735	2885,2794,2786	4977-4539	3028-2590
Section 2.3c
Sylv Lk        Y1535	4730+80	5543,5538, 5463,5340,5339	3594,3589, 3514,3391,3390	5583-5323	3634-3374

 

2.3 The Lake Forest Tradition

The Lake Forest, applied by Tuck(1978), and Snow(1980), relates to an adaptation stretching from interior Maine westward to the Great Lakes. It is characterized by local variation in its expression (Snow 1980:219). Tuck (1978:30) suggests that in a definition as broad as this, only part can be identified with Ritchie's Laurentian. A western equivalent would be the "Old Copper Culture", or more accurately, the "Old Copper Industry"(Tuck 1978:31).

In the Northeast, the Lake Forest tradition has been equated to Ritchie's formulation of the Laurentian. However, as the Laurentian it has undergone continual revision and updating by Ritchie between 1938 and 1969. Ritchie's definition has been vigorously defended by Funk (1983, 1988). He illustrates that it has far-reaching regional expressions with central key elements that go beyond a particular projectile point type. The validity of either of these terms on the Northeastern scene is of some significance to the main issue of this study. However, I note here that there are some very cohesive elements within the late Archaic that deserve special attention whether it be termed "Laurentian" or "Lake Forest". These have a significant impact on the interpretation of data from Connecticut and the lowest Connecticut valley in particular.

Part of this aspect of "cohesiveness" may partially relate to a generalized strategy of adaptation and the stabilizing of environmental conditions in the Northeast (Custer 1988:125). Equally important may have been the homogenizing effect of trade networks and the increased flow of information and cultural elements.

The cohesive elements that bind together the cultural manifestation of this period when viewed in an idealized cultural systems approach are as follows: (1) There are medium to large broad-bladed projectile point forms, ground slate ulus and/or points, polished stone gouges, adzes, ulus, plummets, drills, winged bannerstones, pestles, hammerstones, and whetstones in the technological subsystem. (2) The economic subsystem (Snow 1980:222, Funk 1983:321) relates to hunting, fishing and gathering techniques and a diffuse adaptive strategy (Cleland 1976). (3) The social subsystem is predominantly hypothetical; however, Snow (1980) and Funk (1983) suggest that patrilocal bands occupying limited territories or drainage basins moved seasonally corresponding to the availability of local resources. 4) The ideological subsystems as evidenced within burial programs is poorly known. There is one radiocarbon date for Oberlander I, which dated to 5010 + 130 BP [AA-2251] (Funk 1988:27). Here Ritchie (1969:103) and Funk (1983:323) suggest that primary and extended in-flesh burials are part of this "Laurentian" tradition. Snow (1980:222) suggests that a Lake Forest "Moorehead-type complex" may exist. Griffin (1952:355) suggests "that cremation was the emphasized form of the burial complex" for the Laurentian culture. Funk (1988: 27) notes the information from the Clark site cremation that dated to 6120 BP [GX 13955] by the apatite dating process. While this date may not be considered as reliable, the burial custom of cremation is significant. In light of the local subsystem variability seen within the Lake Forest Archaic, burial ceremonialism could also be quite different from region to region. I present more data concerning the ideological subsystem in a later section of this dissertation.

The phases reported by Ritchie (1969) and more recently by Funk (1983 & 1988) need to be more clearly defined temporally, spatially, and culturally where possible.

2.3a The Vergennes Phase

The earliest phase of the Laurentian was first established and formalized by Ritchie (1938) following the discovery by Bailey (1939) of an early assemblage at the Donovan site in Vergennes, Vermont. Sites associated with this phase were located on Otter Creek, along the eastern shore of Lake Champlain. The distribution of this phase extended north to Quebec and west into northern and eastern New York. The KI site in the southeastern Champlain drainage was excavated in 1966 and was determined by Ritchie to be a "pure" assemblage of the Vergennes phase. This site included "ovate and lanceolate knives of local quartzite, a few simple end scrapers, a winged drill, two fragmentary plummets, a native copper gouge, a broken bannerstone, rod shaped stones and abraders," as well as chipped "Otter Creek" projectile points and stemmed ground slate points (Ritchie 1969a:86). The dates at the time of Ritchie's (1969a) publication were estimated between 5500-4500 BP.

Ritchie (1969a:86) suggests that the KI site was a small winter hunting camp, used by a single small band. He indicated that the artifacts relate to hunting and fishing activities as well as the preparation of food. Woodworking is also suggested. A possibly related burial was found at the KI site by an amateur informant. There are suggestions of a primary burial with quartzite cobbles and light use of red ocher.

Otter Creek No.2 was discovered after the publication of Ritchie's Archaeology of New York State and firmly dated the Vergennes phase to 5070 + 210 [I-6349]. Ritchie (1979:20) reported that this site, though "weakly stratified" had a definite Vergennes component with at least half a dozen burial features (Ritchie 1979:18). Burial customs suggested both primary and secondary interment but there were no clear signs of grave goods. The habitation zone of the Vergennes component produced ground slate and chipped projectile points, several narrow stemmed points, ground stone gouges, adzes, celts, one plummet, ulus, mullers, choppers, scrapers, hammerstones, and an atlatl fragment. Worked bone implements as awls, punches, and bone points were also identified (Ritchie 1979:14-16).

Comparing sites such as KI and Otter Creek No.2 to the Maritime Archaic in coastal and riverine sites in Maine, one sees little difference in the assemblages. Funk (1983), Sanger (1975), and Snow (1980) note the congruity of these Late Archaic cultural manifestations. Snow (1980:220) points out that such similarity is expected since "the Laurentian is one variation on the Lake Forest theme, which in turn appears as a broad interior adaptation. Similarly, the Maritime Archaic is a related and reasonably coherent coastal adaptation. It should be no surprise that some Maine sites that we have classified for convenience in the Maritime Archaic may have traits in common with a Lake Forest variant in the Champlain drainage. The thrust of archaeological research has turned to the exploration of variations in local adaptation within a broad Maritime-Lake Forest continuum".

Funk (1988:17) subsequently has spatially and temporally expanded the range of the Laurentian and specifically the Vergennes phase citing data that imply a "Vergennes-like complex underlying later Laurentian expressions". These date between 6300 and 5700 BP within the Hudson, Schoharie and Susquehanna basins. In the upper Susquehanna, the McCulley No. 1 Site (Funk and Rippeteau 1977:237), yielded end scrapers, side scrapers, anvilstones, pitted nutting stones, and the diagnostic Otter Creek projectile points. The component was dated at 5730 + 110 BP [I-5524]. The Shafer site in the Schoharie Valley and Sylvan Lake Rockshelter of the Hudson Valley have yielded similar points dated between 6290 and 6560 BP. Based on the extreme ages of these artifacts and the fact that they have not been found in association with the complete inventory including ground slate, points and ulus, Funk (1988:26) has opted to assign these to a "Proto-Laurentian" stage.

2.3b The Brewerton Phase

The Brewerton phase was formulated and described on the basis of work carried out by Ritchie (1969a) during the 1930's in Brewerton, New York and later in 1962 at the O'Neil site on the Senaca River. The Brewerton component at O'Neil was dated by charcoal samples from two hearths. The dates generated were 4000 + 220 BP [I-424] and 3960 + 100 [Y-1273]. In association with these samples were Brewerton type projectile points, and a tanged copper point (Ritchie 1969a:91). Funk (1988) has questioned the accuracy of these dates, suggesting that they are too young.

More recent dating of the Brewerton component at Oberlander I, burial #4 has yielded 5010 + 130 [AA-2251]. An age determination from the Susquehanna Valley and the Camelot #2 site (Funk 1988:27) generated a date of 4795 + 230 BP [GX-10460] .

Dincauze (1976:126) reports a cutoff date for the Laurentian elements from the Neville site in New Hampshire that suggested that it was no younger than 4390 + 180 BP [GX-1749]. She therefore suggests an older date of 4500 BP and added that the southern New England date from Hornblower #II (Ritchie 1969b:52) of 4220 + 160 BP [Y-1530] is also at the young end of the Brewerton phase and Laurentian continuum.

According to Ritchie (1969a), the distribution of this phase was chiefly central New York. Funk (1983) expands this range to northern New York and potentially southern Ontario. Snow (1980) and Funk (1983) considered this regionalized expression of the Lake Forest to extend far beyond the borders of New England. Yet Dincauze (1976) inferred the existence of an interior New England Brewerton adjacent the Neville site and further suggested (Dincauze 1975:25-26) that there is no Laurentian in southern New England. Finally, Tuck (1978) noted that there is an intrusion from a Laurentian-Lake Forest culture into southern New England sometime between 4500-4000 BP. Thus, there are about as many theories concerning distribution as there are archaeologists.

Artifacts related to the technological subsystem are Brewerton type projectile points (Ritchie 1969a), scrapers, knives, drills, winged bannerstones, polished gouges, adzes, celts, plummets, hammerstones, anvilstones, bone awls, gorges and barbed points (Funk 1983). Ritchie adds slate points and the ulu, mullers, shallow mortars, conical pestles, and choppers. There is also evidence of dogs used as pets and possibly hunting companions (Ritchie 1969a:96). Oberlander #I had two flexed dog burials within the midden.

The economic subsystem is evidenced in tool categories and faunal and floral remains indicated hunting, fishing and gathering activities.

Although Oberlander #I and the Robinson sites were very large, others that have been identified are small campsites. Therefore, band level organization and central based wandering may be inferred.

The ideological subsystem as evidenced within the mortuary practices indicates primary burial in extended position in shallow graves. Within the middle area of the Oberlander #I site, there was a multiple burial of four individuals--two children and an adult male and female. Ritchie (1969a:103) also reports flexed, bundled, and cremated skeletal materials within other Brewerton sites. In these, there was a slight offering of grave goods and one burial employed the light use of red ocher sprinkled over the top of the pit.

2.3c The Vosburg Phase

The Vosburg phase occupied the Hudson Valley and extended south and west to the Delaware Valley and east into western Connecticut (Funk 1983:323). Kinsey (1972) has pointed out that the diagnostic Vosburg points within the upper Delaware valley are not found in pure components. Such specimens appear within the components as secondary elements, rarely as a dominant type. Funk (1983) has suggested that the phase's temporal placement is between 5200-4400 BP. At the Bannerman site, it was dated to 4474 + 300 BP. At Sylvan Lake Rockshelter, the initial date of the phase was 4730 + 80 BP [Y-1535].

Ritchie (1969a:84) offered the view that the phase has not been sufficiently delineated even though there has been a concentrated effort to do so. He suggests that it is contemporaneous with Brewerton but is an eastern New York phenomenon. The chief distinctions between Vosburg and Brewerton are that Vosburg lacks native copper items, ground slate points, and has a much greater number of slate semilunar knives or ulus. The Vosburg point type characteristic of the phase has not been found in clear and distinct association to the exclusion of other forms. In fact, it has thus far never been a major constituent of the projectile point assemblage on supposed Vosburg sites (Ritchie 1969a:84).

Funk (1988:35) reports that at Otter Creek II, the Vosburg-like projectile points existed alongside the "Vergennes" component. However, on the Weinman and Knox sites, as well as at the Fish Club cave and Lotus Point, the Vosburg assemblages occurred stratigraphically above the Vergennes component. Finally, Funk (1988:34) alerts us to the similar situation alluded to by Kinsey in the Delaware Valley. That is that Vosburg points may not have belonged to the same whole cultural context in the lower valley as they did in the upper valley. The lower Hudson valley assemblages may not correspond to the definitions for either the Vergennes or the Vosburg phases. Snow (1980:221) suggested that the Vosburg phase may not exist as any more than "a slight variation in the Lake Forest theme." The evidence is not clear as to the appropriate definition of this phase or if it can be shown to be an independent culture system. Snow's (1980:221) suggestion that "we search for the reasons for local variation" may have validity with respect to the Vosburg phase.

2.4 Mast Forest Tradition

The Mast Forest Archaic tradition characterized the Northeast from the Merrimack drainage of New England and west to the Great Lakes and coastal drainages to North Carolina. It was obviously a broad zone; however, Snow (1980:223) suggests that it brought together an adaptive expression that was concurrent with the Lake Forest and Maritime Archaic of the Northeast. The problem solved by creating this zone was that it united many of the so-called traditions that had been reported for provinces in this zone. Terms that were applied relating to traditions within this zone were Taconic, Piedmont, Boreal, Coastal, Atlantic Slope, and Appalachian. Projectile point types have similarly named traditions within the Mast Forest Archaic. Such terms as small stemmed, narrow stemmed, narrow point, and small point have been applied. Dincauze indicates that there was an overall unity in these traditions. "There are ancient basic patterns in the cultures of the Atlantic watershed, which flowed and repeated through time and space" (Dincauze 1975:24). Whether the term Mast Forest or Atlantic Slope is used, Snow(1980) and Dincauze(1975) recognize the broad zone of adaptation.

Within the Northeast, the continuum that Snow and Dincauze envisioned were the Sylvan Lake complex (Funk 1965 of southeastern New York, the Squibnocket complex (Ritchie 1969b) of southeastern New England, the River phase of the Upper Hudson, the Lamoka phase of central New York, and the Bare Island complex of the mid-Atlantic provinces (Snow 1980:226). Funk after Kinsey (1972) referred to this broadly distributed entity as the Piedmont tradition and described it as a major phenomenon within the Late Archaic of the Northeast. "The various phases are linked by the predominance of narrow stemmed projectile points and a general scarcity of unifacial tools including end scrapers. Otherwise, the phases appear to have little in common" (Funk 1983:324).

Tuck (1978:35) similar to Snow (1980:188), took a broad view and preferred to look at this manifestation as a Late Archaic adaptive pattern in an oak-hickory-chestnut-deer-turkey biome. In his approach two physiographic settings, the coastline and interior, were characterized by "similar artifact types and varieties." Along the Atlantic coast there was clear evidence of terrestrial, aquatic and marine resources being used. Seasonal population shifts from the interior to the coastline may have been evidenced during this period and most likely occurred within band defined territories. Along with Funk(1983), Tuck(1978) did not suggest an elaborate technology.

In the continuum of the Mast Forest Archaic, various distinctions were made such as Lamoka, Sylvan Lake, Squibnocket, and Wading River (Dincauze 1976:54). The issue at hand is reminiscent of the previous section's debate concerning Lake Forest or Laurentian with the corresponding phases of Vergennes, Brewerton, and Vosburg. A generalized adaptive pattern was offered as an organizing element. Yet individual archaeologists have identified their own specifically oriented data.

With respect to the distribution of the Mast Forest tradition Snow (1980:244) suggests that it expands northward through time, displacing the Lake Forest tradition . By 4200 BP the Mast Forest was well established in the lower Hudson. In the next five hundred years, it had spread to the upper Hudson and Mohawk drainages. To the west of the Hudson, two concurrent adaptations had a "marginal belt of tension" (Snow 1980:227) that he suggests has confused research in New York. Ritchie and Funk have been working with the hypothetical Mast Forest-Lake Forest interface for years attempting to show temporal discontinuity. Therefore they envision that these two traditions may share the same space but not the same time. Snow poses the possibility that the stratigraphic position of narrow bladed points--Mast Forest components--at times and locations along the zone of tension could be both above and below Lake Forest components. This evidence may suggest contemporaneity of the two traditions.

The origin of the Mast Forest tradition in southern New England, according to Dincauze (1975:25), is that there was an "in situ" development of this culture from Middle Archaic times. Ritchie posed that "intrusion" from the Middle Atlantic region had occurred (Ritchie 1969a:215). Dincauze (1975:25) remarks that, if intrusion "did occur, it must have taken place well before 4150 BP since small stemmed points have been dated to 4640 BP [Y-2499] at Bear Swamp in Berkley, Massachusetts." In southern New England at the Canoe River West site a narrow stemmed point was identified and an associated component generated a date of 4835 + 250 BP [GX 7085] (Hoffman 1987:personal communications). The narrow stemmed point associations and pre-4500 BP. dates are certainly the exception rather than the rule and I point out the preliminary basis of these author's assertions.

The technological subsystem that was witnessed in the artifact assemblage has been characterized by the narrow bladed stemmed point with both a rough as well as a finished bases. Dincauze (1975) notes that projectile point forms are not exactly the same from one region to another. Such variation has led many archaeologists to give projectile point type names for each occurrence. While projectile point variation may be typologically discernible, it may or may not have significance concerning specific cultural adaptation. Therefore the systems approach and the expanded perspective of the technological subsystem has been widely used by archaeologists wrestling with such typological problems. Dincauze (1975) has noted the apparent tendency for this Mast Forest tradition to use locally derived raw materials to produce tools. Tools in the technological subsystem are mortars, mullers and adzes, pestles, choppers, scrapers, knives, and notched bannerstones. Ritchie (1969a:215) stresses the significance of the pebble industry as the basis of the production of chipped tools.

The economical subsystem as evidenced by subsistence strategies of the Mast Forest tradition was toward the diffuse end of the continuum (Cleland 1976). According to Dincauze (1975:25), settlements were small, numerous, and in a variety of micro-environments. Mast Forest sites contain mortars, mullers and pestles, suggesting the processing of plant materials. Ritchie (1969a:58) recovered seventy-four deer from Lamoka Lake. He sees a fall-winter encampment based on faunal analysis that showed four antlered bucks, four bucks with recently shed antlers, and three fawns younger than six months old. Dincauze (1976) strongly indicates the importance of fishing at the Neville site during the Archaic. Barber (1979) likewise interprets from his excavations at the Boswell site in Massachusetts important fishing activities. The Boylston Street Fishweir (Johnson 1942, Ritchie 1969a, Dincauze 1975) was probably built at this time attesting to Mast Forest fishing activities. Seasonal fishing was suggested for the Upper Susquehanna drainage; "at Fortin and Kuhr, the Lamoka floors produced ample evidence for fishing" (Funk and Rippeteau 1977:21). At Fortin I, Zones 7 through 3, the Late Archaic Mast Forest tradition was evidenced by dates from 4185 + 120 [I-7098] to 3610 + 95 BP [I-6368].

In the coastal section of the Northeast, there are many sites of the Mast Forest tradition that were large special-purpose shellfish exploitation loci. Hornblower #II on Martha's Vineyard had a component of the Squibnocket complex dated to 4140 + 100 BP [Y-1529] (Ritchie 1969b:215).

At Hornblower #II "large quantities of shellfish, principally hard clam, demonstrate the coastal adaptation of these people" (Ritchie 1969b:216). Brennan's information from the lower Hudson and dates of 5850 BP through 4725 BP for "heavy harvesting of shellfish separated by episodes of disuse" is cited by Snow (1980:230). Snow (1978:65) has also noted an apparent slow northeastward drift of shellfish utilization through time from Mast Forest sites.

The social subsystem as reflected in settlement pattern was strongly linked to seasonal availability of food resources. Communities were probably not large but were likely numerous and spread about the territory to take maximum advantage of local environments and associated resources.

Several rectangular house patterns were uncovered at the Lamoka Lake site. These structures were approximately 5 meters long and 3.5 meters wide (Ritchie 1969a:74, Funk 1983:327). The number of people within any one structure was estimated at six to eight, suggesting a family or extended family residence. Ritchie (1969a:76) offered the possible interpretation that even though the site was over 4000 square meters and potentially could have encompassed up to twenty-seven lodges he suspected that there was a small shifting population over several generations.

The ideological subsystem as evidenced within burial practices was variable. Shallow primary flexed burials were discovered at Lamoka Lake. In the Boston area, a primary burial was found in a small pit below a shell midden. Ocher had been lightly sprinkled over the flexed burial and adjacent to it were smaller pits with some broken small stemmed quartz projectile points and a broken gouge. A date for this feature was 4130 + 225 BP [GX-2528] (Dincauze 1975). Preliminary indications suggest that the Mast Forest tradition probably used primary burials. There are not many grave goods with such interments. Yet the use of red ocher suggests some level of elaboration in burial ceremony.

At Bear Swamp in Massachusetts, cremations similar to those at Wapanucket #8 were reported (Staples and Athearn 1969, Dincauze 1975). Snow (1980:232)) suggested that cremation was probably the preferred burial pattern for the Mast Forest tradition. The basis for this assessment in New England was the Wapanucket #8 and Bear Swamp data. Funk (1988:14) indicated that the eleven Wapanucket cremation burials of Feature 206 were associated with assemblages suggestive of Laurentian but he noted that there were also narrow stemmed points associated as well. A review of Robbins (1980:231) shows that the eleven cremation burials within Feature #206 had only one typeable projectile point in proper "intentional" association. This was a Stark-like point of quartzite. Narrow stemmed and Squibnocket triangular points overlay the burials and were found in the backdirt (Robbins 1980:231).

There are various reinterpretations to Robbins' original work at Wapanucket. Snow (1980), Dincauze (1975), and Funk (1988) suggest a Mast Forest affinity. Using the same data, a equally valid case could be made for the site to be assigned to a local Middle Archaic Neville or possibly Lake Forest complex. I suggest that the use of Wapanucket to support the formulation of the ideological subsystem for either Mast Forest or Lake Forest is weak.
 

Figure 2.4.1 Northeastern Mast Forest Archaic Dates and Calibrations
 

Site	Laboratory Lab #     Date	Cal BP	Cal BC	Max/Min BP	Max/Min BC
Bear Swmp    Y	2499     4640+/-80	5450, 5360, 5341	3501, 3411, 3382	5569-5312	3620-3363
Bostn B1     GX	4130+/-225	4811, 4763, 4687, 4677, 4644, 4628, 4614, 4579	2862, 2814, 2738, 2728, 2695, 2679, 2665, 2630	4964-4409	3015-2460
Canoe RW     G	X7805  4835+/-250	5589	3640	5899-5299	3950-3350
Fortin 1           I	7089    4185+/-120	4825, 4750, 4728, 4663, 4656	2876, 2801, 2779, 2714, 2707	4869-4539	2920-2590
Fortin 1           I	6360    3610+/-95	3959, 3992	2010, 1973	4083-3830	2134-1881
Hornblr2         Y	1529    4140+/-100	4814, 4759, 4696, 4674, 4676, 4623, 4617	2865, 2810, 2747, 2725, 2697, 2674, 2668	4839-4529	2890-2580

---

[Introduction][Chap.1][Chap.3][Chap.4][Chap.5][Chap.6][Chap.7][Chap.8.0][Chap.8.3][Chap.9]
[Conclusion/Remarks10-11][Bibliography12]  [Homepage]

---

Dr. John E. Pfeiffer