[Introduction][Chap.1][Chap.2][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
CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS
of the
LOWEST CONNECTICUT VALLEY
John E. Pfeiffer
CHAPTER 6
6.0 Review of the Northeastern and Connecticut Perspective: Where are the Shortcomings?
This section reviews the apparent gaps and deficiencies in the data concerning the Late and Terminal periods in the Northeast and southern New England. The basis for such problems are many and have been reviewed in the earlier sections. Briefly, the lack of cohesive regional studies and the paucity of systems sensitive methodology have led to imprecision. Beyond this, there are limitations due to the nature of more recent professional studies that have concentrated primarily upon survey information rather than detailed data from larger more comprehensive excavations.
There is an undeniable material culture bias and therefore a plethora of technological subsystems information in the archaeological record. This is initially a function of bias created naturally through differential preservation. However there has also been a lack of creativity and imagination in examining the other subsystems of culture. While stone artifacts get most of the attention, it is much rarer to see the archaeologist expend energy on the internal site structures. Binford (1983) reviews this major shortcoming.
He suggests,"that as the aim of archaeology is shifting from culture history, to reconstructing lifeways, more attention needs to be paid to the site as a location that was used and lived in by past peoples". He states,"When doing culture-historical research, one normally needs only to recover a sufficient sample of artifacts to permit a cultural assessment of the remains. This means that no real understanding of internal differentiations or organizational variability among components of a single system will be revealed by carrying out normal, traditional archaeological work. The implications are clear: the organizational properties of cultural systems as manifest in the differential use of places is logically excluded and ignored". "The traditional approach has focused upon the artifact as the basic unit of observation, not the site. The archaeologist judges what are to be considered types thus everything else is considered non-diagnostic and ignored. In this perspective features, pits, house forms, and hearths are frequently not considered to be basic cultural diagnostics, because it is recognized that these features are not preserved at most sites or are too expensive to recover." (Binford 1983:406).
An interesting point that serves as an example is that there are descriptions of post molds in many of the reports. However, there have been few attempts in Connecticut to delineate patterns from such features. Similarly, the relationship between sites has rarely been considered in an attempt to delineate settlement pattern or pose hypothetical territories. Most of the recent site reports review the site specific floral and faunal information but are at a loss to define how other sites fit into this pattern. The one exception to this has been McBride (1984b) where settlement pattern and the use of space was a crucial point in his approach. As a direct result, there has been a deficiency in our ability to discuss social features of the culture system and an inability to accurately assess regional adaptation.
With respect to the burial sites of the Late and Terminal Archaic period there have been very few intensive physical anthropological studies of the remains. Even though there have been many cremation burial sites in southern New England, the concentration of study has been upon the lithic component and not the skeletal material, or the features. This is probably a consequence of the difficulty in working with cremated remains. Yet the result has been that archaeologists are generally unable to significantly discuss mortuary practise or ceremonial characteristics. This has led to a sketchy definition of the ideological subsystem. The stage has therefore been set to produce a tighter data base that will aid in reconstructing culture systems of the Late and Terminal Archaic periods. The research project of the lowest Connecticut Valley has been formulated with these considerations in mind.
Dr. John E. Pfeiffer