Chapter 9

9.0 A Model of Cultural Coexistence

The key to explaining the relationship of the Cedar Lake and Great Island phases during the Terminal Archaic period lies in their form of adaptation. It is only when the settlement pattern of the Cedar Lake phase and the Great Island phase are superimposed that there seems to be a way that permits the systems to coexist. The suggestion here is that the coexistence is temporal but not necessarily spatial (Lavin 1984:16; Pfeiffer 1990:100).

The settlement patterns of both cultural systems are such that there is a minimum of interaction. The Cedar Lake phase had apparently established a territory whose center was in the uplands, concentrating upon interior lakes, streams and wetlands while the Great Island phase had established residence in the river bottom land and adjacent terraces.

The economic base for the upland Cedar Lake phase was specialized and keyed upon upland resources while the Great Island phase demonstrated a specialization upon resources of the river floodplain. What appears to have happened in the Great Island phase settlement system was that the population spread out in apparently small family units across the river plain and adjacent terraces. The Cedar Lake phase exhibited larger habitation sites that appeared to have been used by several families living together (bands) and occupying upland regions.

Such a dichotomy of adaptation could have probably work indefinitely as long as there was stability in the cultural and physical environment. There is some evidence, however, that stability during this period was not continuous. There is evidence that toward the end of the third millennium BP the Great Island population may have begun to diminish. This population decrease may have been manifested in an increase of distance between neighboring sites. This would have had the effect of breaking down established trade and information networks. This would be manifested in the archaeological record as a decrease in both (1) exotic materials from outside the study area, and (2) a decrease of variability in artifactual assemblages at habitation and burial sites.

Both of these patterns are indicated in data from the study area. Comparisons between the nearly contemporaneous Murdoch and Griffin sites both dated between 3500-3000 BP, showed major differences in raw material and a variability of assemblage from later Brodeur Point Stratum C, Cooper's site, Great Island and the ceremonial site of Salisbury Place. All of these sites are likely to date after 3000BP.

The Great Island phase populations were likely facing an additional pressure. We are nearly certain that the floodplain was experiencing some major alterations due to marine transgression. Thus, there were environmental conditions that had drastic implications for the Great Island phase adaptive strategy.

Apparently there was little environmental stability in the interior uplands either. Lavin (1988:106) points out that the interior upland lakes, streams, and wetlands were facing appreciable climatic warming and drying. There is growing evidence that the Cedar Lake phase adjusted to this changing environmental regime by moving into river floodplain sometime after 2900 BP. This adjustment in settlement and economic orientation brought about the new cultural adaptation which I refer to as the Brodeur Point phase. Between 2900 and 2700 BP all evidence of the River Plain adaptation with its Great Island phase ceased in the study area.

The Brodeur Point phase occupied the sites that had been Great Island phase settlements. It is significant that between 2800-2500 BP the river floodplain was drowned due to marine transgression and a marsh environment was established. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the relocation by the Cedar Lake culture system, now Brodeur Point phase, while representing a change in settlement pattern, may not have amounted to a significant change in the economic subsystem. The relocation may have represented a shift to newly established environmental zone to which the Cedar Lake-Brodeur Point groups had already been well adapted. This point becomes more clear upon understanding the process of gradual marine transgression. As sea-level rises it backs up the flow of fresh water, creating riverine aquatic wetlands. Only after a substantial period of time do such regions become saline (Orson personal communications 1981).

This section has presented an hypothesis that accommodates the evidence from this specific study area. The next step in this scientific process would be to expand outward to other study areas to determine if other data sets will support this hypothesis. This has been done to some degree in this dissertation by looking at information from adjoining areas. For now the hypothesis holds. However, future work should be oriented towards other regions outside the Lowest Connecticut Valley.

9.1 A Model of Duck Bay-Great Island Continuity

As analysis proceeds from examining the internal structure of each cultural phase as seen in the study area to the step of looking at relationships between phases in time and space, there is a compounding of inferences. Such analysis is increasingly speculative. The discussion that follows that pertains to continuity, is speculation that deserves to be more thoroughly investigated and tested.

A significant relationship exists between the Duck Bay phase and the Great Island phase with respect to their sharing of the same ideological subsystem. As noted in (Fig. 8.6.3) and discussed above, both phases share cremation burial ceremonialism and in fact the same burial ground. Based upon interpretation I also suggest a very similar set of beliefs with regard to the afterlife and world view.

The research goal of this paper was to define distinct culture systems. The approach used in the initial stages of this research project was effective. The analysis concentrated on the distinct nature of each culture system but not toward the relationship between defined culture systems. When two cultural systems shared the same time, as did the Mast Forest and River Plain adaptations, the differences were clearly apparent and identified two separate and unrelated culture systems. However, across temporal discontinuities differences can be shown but there is no certainty as to their meaning. Differences could indicate one culture system as it was evolving through time or that there had been replacement by another group. The intermediate steps between the two views are needed.

In the study area the comparison of the Lake Forest and the Mast Forest adaptation and related phases (Fig. 8.6.2) serves as an example. If comparisons were made between the Duck Bay phase 4800-4250BP and the Brodeur Point phase 2700-2200BP, these phases represent the greatest temporal span discovered in the study area, differences would be clear. The meaning of such differences and how these systems relate would not be clear. It would be difficult to ascertain whether the Lake Forest was replaced by the Mast Forest adaptation or whether it had evolved into it. Fortunately, during the study I found the intermediate steps, the Tinkham and Cedar Lake phases, as well as temporal overlap. The evidence indicated separate and unrelated cultural systems.

This points out the weaknesses of comparing cultural systems that have been defined using trait list studies based on presence and absence. While a difference can be determined the reasons for such are unclear. This suggests that the methods used to define the cultural systems cannot always be effectively used in the same way to solve the question of their relationship.

I propose a tentative solution that is based upon a model derived from a historically documented culture system. The cultural identity for the various steps through which the system passed was therefore known and can serve as a baseline. "From such a model, one may proceed to make predictions about the patterns that occur in prehistoric sites" (Gould 1978:252). Deviations from the predictions are expected and must be explained by suggesting alterations to the model. There are many uncontrolled features of this approach that reinforce the speculative and tentative nature of the model. However, Gould points out that, "extinct cultural systems need not have resembled any that exist in the present or recently documented past, but the starting point for inferences is still the ethnographic present"(1978:251).

The basis of the model is the southeastern New England Western Nehantic and Narraganestt ethnographic data. In this data set is information concerning the cultural subsystems that were most subject to change and those that were the most conservative. The most conservative subsystems would be the best indicators of cultural relationship and continuity, since they are the most stable and least likely to change substantially over time. The model would provide a baseline against which to compare subsystems of the prehistoric cultural systems defined in the study area.

The Western Nehantic and Narragansett ethnographic and archaeological information indicate that technological features were the first to change. Initially this was seen as an abandonment of lithic materials for European brass, iron, and copper. The tool categories and the activities were the same as those during the precontact period. However, the groups readily accepted new and probably better materials. This change is followed by replacement of entire categories of aboriginal tools. Kettles, bottles, iron axes, twill blankets, kaolin pipes, and many other European materials are adopted to the exclusion of the aboriginal counterparts by 1690 and probably earlier. This is archaeologically shown at the Kaiser I site in the study area dated to 1690 and the Nehantic Burial Ground documented to have been used between 1640 and the mid 19th century (Pfeiffer and Malcarne 1989).

The social and economic subsystems are closely related and substantially changed due to external pressures with the establishment of the reservation in the 1660's for the West Nehantic and King Phillip's War in 1675 for the Narragansett. It is interesting to note that the social and economic changes were gradual in comparison to technological change. Stiles (1755-1794) indicated that most West Nehantic people lived in European style houses but some were still living in round wigwams. His description of the design and layout of one such wigwam clearly showed the interwoven aboriginal and European cultural components. Steward (1955:141) has pointed out that death ceremonies are conservative elements that produce cultural cohesion. The collective memory of the death ceremony and the information that it imparts may last beyond other parts of the culture system. Steward made this observation among living descendants of the western Shoshone.

The conservative nature of burial programs is also noted in the southern New England Contact and Post Contact cemeteries. During these periods the entire culture system was drastically changed as Simmons (1978), Salwen (1978), and Brasser (1978) point out.

I have noted that the one element that changed the least was burial ceremonialism (Pfeiffer 1990). The shape of burial pits, the placement of grave goods in particular prescribed locations, the position and orientation of the body were consistent with pre-contact patterns and lasted into the early to mid 18th century (Simmons 1970, Robinson and Gustafson 1982, Pfeiffer and Malcarne 1989). This burial pattern survived the massive reduction of population, the destruction of tribal and band level social organization, the reorientation of the subsistence base from hunting, gathering, and agriculture to a cash economy, and the replacement of most aboriginal technology for western trade goods. The model of the Western Nehantic and Narragansett suggests that burial customs are one element of culture that is preserved archaeologically and is the least likely to change over time. On the other hand, technological, social, and economic factors interrelate with various changes in adaptive strategy. Therefore, many changes must be expected within these subsystems over the course of the years.

The model predicts the stability and conservatism of the burial customs and ranks the burial customs as the representative of the ideological subsystem as the best indicator of cultural continuity. Similarly the model would predict less similarity over time for the other cultural subsystems.

Using this model for the prehistoric culture systems defined in the study area would suggest that there are several relationships that can now be better understood. The comparison of the River Plain and the Mast Forest Archaic and related forms of adaptation (Fig. 8.6.1) suggested no overlap in the ideological or other subsystems. The model would predict this relationship if the two cultural entities were unrelated.

The comparison of the Lake Forest and Mast Forest Archaic Tinkham phase as well as the related subsequent phases (Fig. 8.6.2) suggested no overlap in the ideological subsystems and some overlap in the other subsystems. The model would predict that the two cultural groups were unrelated.

The relationship between the Duck Bay and Great Island phases can be effectively understood by considering the predictions of the model. The similarity of the burial customs as well as the use of the same cemetery for the Duck Bay and Great Island phases would be predicted if there was a cultural relationship. There is some similarity in the other subsystems (Fig. 8.6.3) as well. Continuity of the local phases of the Lake Forest and River Plain adaptations is supported through the use of the model.

If such a hypothetical continuum does exist, there would be a considerable time depth involved. I suspect that the differences between Duck Bay and Great Island phases will be shown to be a consequence of the intervening development of a focal economic strategy. The main differences exist not as presence or absence, but rather as degree within the social and economic subsystems. From this perspective, a Duck Bay-Great Island continuum would show a restriction of territory over time and an addition of technology to make up for the loss of a particular environment's resources. The Cleland (1976) focal-diffuse model would predict that under such conditions, a more focal orientation would occur.

To support this hypothetical continuum, what is needed are the intermediate links between the two culture systems. This would entail finding possible new phases or extensions of already existing ones that fall between 4250-3600 BP. or between the calibrated span of 4450 and 4075 BP.

In reviewing all of the radiometrically dated components (Hoffman 1985) there are only four that fall between these dates. For an equal span between 3700 and 3200 there are twelve; and from 4700-4200 there are sixteen components. Is this paucity of the number of dated components a result of (1) archaeological bias, (2) radiometric age determination error, (3) a real phenomenon, thus suggesting no continuum, or (4) a failure to find the right sites? I suspect that #4 is the right answer.

The choice of the date 3700 BP as the beginning date for the Terminal Archaic period is highly speculative and in New England is based upon the Atlantic Ledges site (Dincauze 1972). There are two considerations that should be taken into account. The first consideration is that the Atlantic phase may be real, but its temporal position is ill-defined. Second, the categorization of some projectile points as "Neville" may place these sites in the Middle Archaic period when in fact they are Late or Terminal Archaic. This is a clear possibility for Burwell-Karako (Lavin and Russell 1985:54) where there is an unexplained stratigraphic reversal of narrow stemmed points beneath Neville projectile points. Are these Neville points or are these some variant of Atlantic, Snook Kill, or Koens-Crispin. Equally suggestive is Hoffman's (1985,1991) position concerning Middle Archaic "Neville" projectile points that he believes continued well into the Terminal Archaic.

It is therefore possible that throughout southern New England, we have been missing the cultural step or steps between Lake Forest and River Plain adaptation because of misidentification. The problem may be that, we have to some degree permitted the typology to flow into our assemblage rather than out of it (Rouse 1960:313-323).