Northeast Historical Archaeology Volume 22 From Prehistory to the Present: Studies in Article 5 Northeastern Archaeology in Honor of Bert Salwen

1993 Indian Forts of the Mid-17th Century in the Southern New England-New York Coastal Area Ralph S. Solecki

Follow this and additional works at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Recommended Citation Solecki, Ralph S. (1993) "Indian Forts of the Mid-17th Century in the Southern New England-New York Coastal Area," Northeast Historical Archaeology: Vol. 22 22, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.22191/neha/vol22/iss1/5 Available at: http://orb.binghamton.edu/neha/vol22/iss1/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in Northeast Historical Archaeology by an authorized editor of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. . 64 Forts of New England-New York/Solecki

INDIAN FORTS. OF THE MID-17TH CENTURY IN THE SOUTHERN NEW. ENGLAND-NEW YORK . COASTAL AREA'·

Ralph S. Solecki

According to a recent hypothesis in connection with the emergence of the wampum trade, some 17th~century Indian forts in the southern New England-New. · York coastal area were built as trading stations rather than for defense or refuge. This proposition has not been fully explored An examination of the datafrom . the known Indian forts:' on Long Island and across the Long Island Sound in Connecticut and Rhode Island indicates that the proposition .needs review. Only three out of nine forts discussed here appear to qualify as trading stations. These date comparatively late in the second half of the 17th century. . . . Selon. une recente hypothese concernant l'emergence du commerce du wampoum, certains forts amerindiens du XVIt dans la region cotiere du Sud de la Nouvelle-Angleterre et de New York ant ete construits comme postes de traite plutat que de defense ou de refuge. Cette hypothese n'a pas eM exploree dans le detail. Il y a lieu de la revoir a la lumiere d'un examen des donnees provenant des forts amerindiens connus de Liing Island et d'au-dela du detroit de Long Island au Connecticut. et. au Rhode Island. Seulement trois des neufs forts portes a l'attention semblent constituer des postes de traite . . Ces forts remontent a une epoque relativement tardive de la seconde moitie du XVIf siecle. ·

Dissenting from the general opinion Willey 1941:. 357-359; Hadlock 1947: that the .accepted function of the pal­ 217; Squier 1850: 10; Thomas 1894: 667, isaded Indian forts in the southern New 671). Beauchamp (1891: 51) estimates England-:New York ·coastal area were that nearly 200 defensive works were defensive or refuge structures, we have noted by all observers in New York the recent suggestion that at least some state. When Champlain visited the of thein were built primarily for the In­ coast of New England in 1605, he found dian trade. Lynn Ced (1980), who has in Maine a permanent Indian settlement made an analysis of the role Qf the surrounded by a palisade wall. · Outside wa.mpum trade in the northeast, ap:­ were scatteredwigwams and small gar.:. pears to think that Indian forts built on dens. The Indians took refuge in the waterways w~re purposefully located fort when attacked (Bushnell 1919: 18- for access by colonial traders. Her 19). Bushnell (1919: pl. 4a, 4b) propofiition is an interesting one and illustrates two Indian forts from the well worth exploring. · 1651 Map of Novi Belgii, which he as:. Construction of forts by the Indians cribes to Van der Donk. One is a appears to have been known wellbefore rectangular palisaded · Mahican the arrival of the Europeans (Ford and village, and the other is a Minisink Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNol. 21-22,1992-1993 65

village enclosed by a round palisade or any excavation~ Beauchamp (1905: enclosure with an overlapping entry 111-112, pl. 2) suggests that the earlier way. Williams (personal Indian forts had this kind of construc­ communication, 1968) says that no evi­ tion. A kind of gallery along the top of dence of fortification has been found in the works could be set up around the the Minisink area despite intensive whole perimeter for defense. survey and excavations. Brasser (1978: The more economical use of timber 198) says that the Mahican Indians for making a palisade was to set indi­ usually selected hilltops near the river vidual logs in the ground around the for their palisaded villages. perimeter, and to bank earth against Beauchamp (1891: 10-11), on the other both sides for stability. Three methods hand, notes that although camps were of setting the posts in place were ap­ on the river in ·New York, towns and parently known in the New York-New forts were almost always some distance England area. The first method was to from them. The Mahicans wanted not scoop out individual holes in the ground only strong positions, but situations for each post. This involved the labor where they could not be reached by of excavation using either a wooden waterways and canoes. Similarly, spade or scoop or a similar implement, Ritchie and Funk (1973: 363) say that or perhaps a large marine shell. The Iroquois sites' of the early contact logs were then set in and firmed up. An­ period between 1615 and 1635 on the other method, best used in sandy soil, Mohawk River were located well back was to excavate a continuous trench on high, readily defended hills. with a hoe of some kind to a depth of Regarding fort construction, it is re­ two and a half or three feet ported by Beauchamp (1905: 13-14) (Willoughby 1906: 105). The logs were that the Indians used logs burned to then set down into the trench and stabi­ three paces in length (about 15ft, 4.5 in) lized with earth on both sides of the for .their palisades. Champlain and wall. These first two methods could be Cartier (Hodge 1910: 471) had observed done without benefit of any European that some Iroquois fortifications had metal tools. The third method, which 20-ft-high walls (6 m). One especially appears to have been used in the post­ towering structure had quadruple inter­ contact period, was to sharpen the locked palisades 30 ft high (9 m) basal ends of the palisade logs, and to (Beauchamp 1905: 113). drive the posts down into the ground. Vander Donck (1656: 197) describes Whether the. posts were driven down is a fort construction that, upon disinte­ an open question,· as it would appear gration, would leave no trace. He says that someone would have to clamber up that the Indians first laid down large somehow to the top of the structure and logs along the ground in the outline de­ pound the posts home with some kind of sired, adding smaller logs in a heap. heavy mallet. They set logs upon both sides of the We find support for the above heap in a kind of inverted "V," so that methods in early documentation and ar­ the upper ends crossed each other. The chaeologically. Philip Vincent {1638: upper ends were joined together for sta"" 105) of Mystic Fort, Connecticut mas­ bility. Finally, tree trunks were placed sacre fame, gives us a much quoted de­ in the crossed upper ends, which solidi­ scription fot fort construction in New fied the whole structure in a firm bul­ England. He says that the. palisade wark. It did not require any buttressing posts at Mystic were about as thick as a 66 Forts of New Englalld~New York/Solecki. · man's thigh or the calf of his leg. The nials,with their European industry and posts were about 12 Jt (3.6 m) high, and talent in waging war. As a matter of were ranuiled into the ground about fact, as Vander Donck (1656: 197) has three feet, "with undermining." Earth observed,· the palisaded viliages did was cast up ·around the walls for extra more injury than good;· as they 'proved protection. · The palisade defenders to be a death trap. To the European, shot arrows at their aggressors through war was a deadly business. for "loop holes" in the . palisade wall. professionals. To the Indians, it was a These holes were· formed by fitting un­ kind of manly sport (Denton 1670: 9; dressed logs together, leaving sp'aces Underhill·1638: 40-41). between individual logs. Squier (i850: 82) thought that an embankmez\t of earth from the surrounding .ditch was The Long Island Indian Forts essential in fort construction for the erection and support of the palisade. At present we know of five, or pos­ He suggests that when iron implements sibly six, Indian forts on ·Long Island became available, the laborious work (FIG. 1; Parker 1922; Solecki 1950). of digging and propping up the posts be- . Tooker (1888) believed that each of the came unnecessary. To Squier, this ex­ "13 tribes" of Long Island had a fort, or plained the finding of palisades with­ .at least a place of refuge. This is not an out trenches and accompanying em- unlikely possibility given the strained bankments of earth. ' relations of the late prehistoric and Regarding the· change from circular early historical times on Long Island. or: round to rectangular or oblong forts, We have· some archaeological knowl­ Squier (1850) thinks that the modifica­ edge proving the existence of four of tl;te tion was probably the result of imitat­ forts. The fifth, on Shelter Island, is ing the Europeans, or came from the fairly· well documented· in the colonial newer modes of fighting with firearms. literature, but has not yet been located Given the practicality of the mMter, archaeologically. A sixth, near Mon­ however, it was most certainly the in'­ tauk Point, is fleetingly mentioned in troduction of the iron implements that the literature and its status is uncon­ was the deciding factor. The bastion, firmed. The Long Island forts are sum­ as a fort feature in this area, appears to marized as follows; have been a late post~contact phe­ nomenon, most likely following the Eu­ ropean mode of fort construction, be"' Fort Massapeag cause it was not fo:Und on more ancient Located in the town ofMassapequa, Indian fortifications (Squier· 1$50). a suburban community on western Long Beauchamp (1905: H4) says that the Island's south shore off South Oyster French showed the Indians how to use Bay, Fort Massapeag .is on the edge of a the bastion, and the English builtforts salt marsh in an area known since the and blockhouses for them. late 17th century as "Fort Neck." It is The palisade structures. were no on a sma:ll rise of ground about 660 yd doubt adequate defense for the Indians (594 m) from the bay, and about the in pre~contact times, and provided secu­ same distance from a creek to the west. rity for women and children. They Still preserved by the township in a were, however~ usually very flimsy and mini-park, the site lies about 8 to 10 ft no match against the guns of the colo- above mean sea level. · It is situated p

...f91"t,ru.l~t

(1' ..1§': BilliCk& llilllll'd ~ t,o1>~ \•\'""a s.,,.,.a ~

~c ::tg_ ~t Q"

~;a...... f "",!., .~.:t\9.1\tl.e oeee.\\ .!'-' ..... <.c ~ ~ <.c A Indian Forts ~

a"\ Figure 1. Locations of Indian forts in the southern New England-New York area. 'I 68 Forts of New England-New York/Solecki about 500 yd (450 m) southwest from the interior of the fort.. An ovate refuse main Massapequa Indian village and midden. composed lnainly of shell refuse burial ground. Attention was first was present at the southeastE~m side of drawn to the fort earthworks through a the fort. In the midden were found.abo­ communication in 1811 of a local riginal artifacts, including Shantok resident, Judge Samuel Jones, to the ware (Smith 1950; Solecki n.d.) as well New-York Historical Society (Clinton as datable colonial trade items. Some 1821). Jones said that there had been were datable to between c. 1635 to 1660. another Indian fort, long since eroded We can perhaps fix the date by ex­ away, on the southern most point of the amining the colonial documents salt meadow on the bay. Fort Massa­ (Brodhead 1859: I: 387). The principal peag was very likely gone before ·the sachem of the Massapequa Indians was Fort Neck properties were drawn up in Tackapausha, who was intermediary 1684 (Barck 1926-1927: 57, figure oppo­ and signatory for his tribe, first with site p. 92). No traces of either fort are the Dutch and later with their succes­ shown on the map, but the surveyor in­ sors, the English. We are very fortu;. dicated that at least seven Indian nate that the site never saw the plow houses were present on Fort Neck. It is in its entire history. It appears that very likely that the palisade posts, the Dutch (within whose sphere of precious commodities in a timber-,poor influence Massapequa fell) had area, were removed after the forts were directions to construct a fort for trade abandoned. and safeguard in the Oyster Bay area Judge Jones could be blamed for in 1656. starting the unfounded tale that Cap­ We cannot be positive that Fort tain John Underhill, also of Mystic Fort Massapeag was built by the Dutch or massacre fame, slayed the Massapequa under their supervision, but a number of Indians near Fort ·Massapeag in 1653 indications point to their involvement. (Solecki n.d.). The fort was brought to We have knowledge of at least sixpal­ scholarly attention in an archaeologi­ isade post ends Gohannemann 1983; cal journal by Burggraf (1938). About Smith 1954; Solecki n.d.), that were re... the same time in the 1930s, Smith covered from the area of the west wall. (1950, 1954) and Solecki (n.d., 1985) in­ Four of these were lost. Examination of dependently and together visited and the two remaining showed that they measured the site. All of the fort had been pointed with a sharp chop­ ditches and embankments were plainly ping tool like ·an axe. The posts were prominent. The fort was almost exactly from 6-10 in (8.5-25.4 em) in diameter, 100 ft square (30 m) within the ditches. and appear to have been made of. red There were two bastions, one on the cedar. Of incidental note, there was no northwest comer and one on the south­ indication of a linear trench dug into east comer, and a break in the embank­ the ground for the placement of the ment on the northeast comer, which posts. From this we infer that the posts may have been one entryway, albeit a had been driven into the sandy soil.· narrow one. The major entryway ap­ Burggraf (1938) was very much im­ pears to have been at the southeast pressed by the quantity of the wampum bastion head, where there was no ditch manufacturing debris he recovered at or embankment. The ditches measured · Fort Massapeag. He made a study of about 6ft (1.8 m) across. The embank­ the technique of wampum making at ment was about a foot higher than the Massapeag from raw material to fin- Northeast Historical Archaeology/Vol. 21-22, 1992-1993 69 ished product. In the same refuse mid­ area of about three quarters of an acre. den, a number of handwrought iron The enclosure measured about 210ft (63 nails whose pointed ends were clinched m) north-south and 160ft (48 m) east­ at right angles were recovered. This west. The embankments on the foqr would indicate that some sawn boards sides measured a maximum of about 15 were used in the fort construction. A ft (4.5 m) wide and about 1.5 ft (0.45 m) couple of shovel tests within the fort high. There was a single row of pal­ perimeter revealed no occupational isade posts along the north, west, and traces. Indeed, the interior area, 10,000 much of the south walls, plus double ft2(900 m2), was too small to house the and even multiple palisades on the east Massapequa population. Their occupa­ wall facing the creek. At the southeast tional remains covered several acres corner there were multiple palisade outside the fort (Solecki, n.d.). walls, like a set of baffles. The site is about 10 ft (3 m) above the creek level. J. Wickham Case (1882: 120-121) Fort Corchaug noted an entry in the town records dated Located near Cutchogue, on a neck February 16, 1662, stating that the fort of land known since the 17th century as that had stood by the creek had been "Fort Neck," Fort Corchaug is the best erected about the time of the settlement preserved fort site known on Long Island of Southold town (c.l640) for refuge and (Smith 1950; Solecki 1950, 1985; Tooker as a secure place for the Indian women 1911; Williams 1972). The site is situ­ and children in case of invasion and as­ ated on thewest bank of Downs Creek, sault by neighboring tribes. They were a shallow tidal creek emptying into often at war with groups from the the Peconic Bay in the south. The fort mainland, particularly the was known and visited by both the Narragansetts, who took the place of Dutch and English before the middle of the Pequots as aggressors. the 17th century. Although the Dutch Excavations in the palisade area at made strong overtures to the Corchaug various points revealed that the pal­ Indians in this area they called isade posts had been set into linear "Crommegow," they lost out to the En­ trenches dug about 2.5 ft (0.75 m) deep. glish. The latter, based in closer Con­ Earth was heaped both inside and out­ necticut, brought their influence to bear side· of the palisade. No occupational as seen in the quantity of English trade traces were noted inside the fort area. goods at Corchaug. Both English and Several small wigwam sites were found Dutch were particularly interested in to the south of the south palisade wall wampum, a lucrative good that was (Solecki 1950), however. The major easily convertible into furs in the Iro­ village of the Corchaug Indians was on quois country. Wampum manufacturing the next neck of land to the east. The featured rather heavily in the economy name of the Corchaug sachem who of Fort Corchaug. figured in the early Southold town The fort was built about 1640 and records was Momoweta. He was appears to have gone by 1662 (Solecki succeeded by Paucamp, who signed 1950). It was a palisaded structure, away the last parcels of Corchaug land roughly oblong in shape, with two ex­ to the English. By then (at least by tensions, presumably bastions, one on 1662), the fort had probably been aban­ the northwest end and one on the north­ doned and the palisade posts had been east end. The embankments enclosed an stripped from the fort as valuable 70 Forts of New England-New Y ork/Solecki wood. There is no record that the fort able palisade postmolds or trenches, we had ever been attacked. would have to resort to .some specula­ tion. Since this area was virtually treeless in Indian times and wood was Fort Shinnecock precious, it is possible that either the A sister fort .of Fort Corchaug was palisade posts, which may not have situated across Peconic Bay in the Shin­ been set in a trench, were removed after necock Hills in the township of the fort fell into disuse, or another Southampton. Tooker (1892) says that method of fortification was used. We fort was probably located at a place may hypothesize/ that a linear cage of called "Sepunak," but the exact site boughs was woven closely together, was unknown. The site ofthe fort was filled with earth, and topped with located in 1989 by Robert Miller during sotrte kind of impeding structure. an archaeological survey of the Bay­ The traces of the associated Shin­ berry Hills site, Shinnecock ·. Hills, in necock village covered about 30 acres the township of Southampton (Miller (Miller 1990: 48). With the exception 1990). The maximum elevation of the of one gunflint spall, all of the artifacts elongated hill on which the fort was recovered in the test excavations were located is about 95 ft (28.5 m) asl. aboriginal in origin. They appear to be Downslope to the south from the knob primarily rough stone tools including of the hill were found five anvil stones, adzes, hammerstones, embankments at about the 70 ft (21 m) hoes, sinew stones, and burned stones. elevation. These traces measured No mention is made of projectile points, between 300 (90 m) and 400 ft (120 m) chipping debitage, or wampum manu­ long in the area investigated. They facturing debris. The only European were roughly parallel, extending east item was the gunflint spall. It should and west following the hill contours. be mentioned that test digging was dif­ There were indications that a ficult, for there was a 3-4ft (0.9-1.2 m) quadruple embankment enclosed the in­ accumulation of soil over the original nermost part of the Bayberry site. 1640 ground surface (Miller 1990: fig. 1). Miller (1990: 41) believes that this site was occupied during the middle of the 17th century, or betweert c .. 1630-1660. Fort Montauk The Shinnecock Indians under their Since it is impossible to trace the sachem, Nowedonah, undoubtedly built outlines of Fort Montauk today, our best the fort for protection against their en­ description is the one by Tooker (1893}. emies, the Narragansett Indians of He visited the site in 1885, and appears Rhode Island (Bayles 1874: 400). He to have taken measurements. He found (1990: 45) also suggests that the struc­ the earthen outlines to be a perfect hire had entrances at the eastern and square, 180ft (54 m) on each side. The western ends. Miller does not report the earth embankment was about 6 ft (L8 finding of any substantial postmolds in m) wide and 1.5 ft (0.45 m) high. There the embankments, nor a trench in which were no signs of any bastions or other palisade posts could have been placed. features on· the comers. The entrance There were a number of postmolds, only was close to the southeast corner. The a few centimeters in diameter, found in area enclosed was about three quarters a line paralleling one of the embank­ of an acre. The elevation of Fort Hill, ments. To explain the absence of size- as it is called, is about 90 ft (27 m). It is Northeast HistoricalArchaeology/Vol. 21-22,1992-1993 71 located just to the northeast of Fort including a Levanna point, and ceram­ Pond. There is a precipitous bluff down ics, including Shantok-type rim and to the pond from the site on its western body sherds. Among the European edge and a more gradual slope on the items were copper projectile points, eastern side. There is a panoramic heavily rusted objects of iron and steel, view from the hilltop to the north, and broken white clay trade pipes. The west, and south. This fort was called excavators also recovered subsistence the "new fort," and it was still standing remains, including fish and shellfish. in 1661 (Johannemann 1983: 7-8, 74). Johanneman (1983: 91) remarks that Tooker (1893) said that he saw 40 it was curious that not one wampum Indian graves inside the fort, each bead or any evidence of wampum manu­ marked by cobbles. Outside the facture was found anywhere in the ex­ perimeter he counted 10 more, and down cavations on Fort Hill, although the the slope to the northwest were 86 more sachem of the Montauks, Wyandanch, graves, a total of 136 burials. All were was known to have paid a huge ransom marked in some manner. On many of in wampum for his daughter who was the hill sides and neighboring valleys kidnapped by the Narragansetts, mor­ Tooker reports that there were shallow tal enemies. It is quite possible that depressions and heaps of stones the. fort was used principally as a marking old Indian cabin sites. refuge during attacks as Tooker (1893) Edward Johannemann (1983) pre• suggests. The wampum makers would pared an initial cultural resource understandably have preferred to do survey of Fort Hill and vicinity in their work in close proximity to the Montauk for the town of East Hampton. source of their raw material on lower While unable to confirm completely lying land. Tooker's observations because of modern We have no definite dates, but the construction, notably a World War I fort was probably built about the mid­ installation and a later hotel, dle of the 17th century, and as we have Johannemann had some success. noted, was reported to be still standing Destroyed by the construction was much in 1661. Johannemann (1983: 76) makes of the fort, village area, and the burial an interesting observation regarding ground. Johannemann (1983: 76, figs. 27, the fate of the palisade walls. He says 28) was fortunate in recovering what that since wood was a scarce commodity appears to be evidence of one of the during and following the 17th century, palisade walls. It consisted of a trench the walls were probably dismantled about 2.5 ft. (76 em) deep with a mid­ when the fort was abandoned. The section width of about 10 in (25 em). same fate probably happened to the .The trench stain was fairly consistent other forts on Long Island, notably Forts in depth. There was an elevation of Corchaug, Shinnecock, and Massapeag. the ground surface above the trench, and a hearth pit to the east lying in a Shelter Island hollow area. An aboriginal potsherd Tooker· (1888) says that there was was found in the pit. supposed to be an Indian fort on Shelter · Johannemann's (1983: 87-92) find­ Island on Sachem's neck opposite Sag ings included aboriginal as well as Eu­ Harbor. The site was not known in ropean trade goods; Ainong the former Tooker's time, and has never been lo­ are quartzite flakes, projectile points cated to our knowledge. '12 Forts of New England-New York/Solecki

Fresh Pond Fort about an acre, or 200 x 200 ft(60 x 60 m). An old Montauk fort was reportedly In the park is the fortified village as situated on ,the eastern extremity of well as the Mohegan Indian cemetery Montauk Point near Fresh Pond; the (Grumet 1990: 141; Salwen 1966; pond is near the Hither (Nominick) Williams 1972: fig. 2). The site, Hills. The fort had supposedly ·fallen naturally defensible, is easily reached into decay by the time the English ar­ by boat. rived in 1640. Smith and Solecki vis­ Uncas, sachem of the Mohegans, ited the area on a survey in 1947, but no made Shantok his home during the trace· of the fort could be seen (Solecki 17th century. His name figured 1950: 13). heavily in the early history of Connecticut. He died in 1683. The site was excavated by Bert The Connecticut Indian Forts Salwen with the help of students dur­ ing the summers of 1962 through 1968 We have some documentary and ar­ and 1970. He set up the chronological chaeological knowledge of three Indian sequence for the site. Three linear pat­ forts in Connecticut, one of was built by terns of palisades were found, which the Mohegans (Fort Shantok), two by are believed to represent three distinct the Pequots (Mystic Fort and Fort Hill). episodes of fort construction. Palisade Of the three forts, Fort Shantok is best No. 1, which defended the western side known archaeologically. It is Mystic toward Shantok Brook and the Fort whose fame is legendary, southern neck approach, was set in a however. Eyewitness reports of the linear trench. According to Williams massacre that took place at the site (1972: 77), this was presumably were indelibly fixed in history over 350 evidence of an early period before the years ago. The forts are described Mohegan obtained metal tools. below. Palisades Nos. 2 and 3 appear to be additions to or reinforcements of the original structure. These palisades Fort Shantok were identified as consisting of This palisaded Mohegan Indian individually set pointed posts. This is fort site is located on the west bank of reminiscent of the Fort Massapeag the . Thames River on a triangular construction, which appears to have promontory formed the junction of this had axe-pointed posts that were driven river with the Shantok Brook from the into the earth; but there is no mention west. The site is about 3 mi (4.8 km) of embankments at Fort Shantok. south of Norwich, Connecticut, and There was abundant evidence that rests about 50 ft ( 15 m) above the river there was a village within the level. There were two major Indian precincts of the fort, including hearths, occupations; the first was between c. pits, and building structures .. Aborigi­ 1635 to 1680, and the second was a nal and colonial trade artifacts were reoccupation of the site between c. 1710 recovered in numbers. Williams (1972: and 1750. We are concerned with the 158) believes that the fort existed be­ earlier occupation. The site was listed fore 1635-1640. She suggests that the in the National Register. of Historic Shantok fort of this period was used Places on March 20, 1986. It is now only as a place of refuge during periods protected in a state park and occupies of threat of . attack. Dur.ing the later Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNol. 21-22, 1992-1993 73

Early. Historical Period (1635-1660), have had their palisaded village atop Williams (1972: 181) believes that Fort a great hill a quarter of a mile west of Shantok was a fortified settlement or the Mystic River. There was a small village, not a seasonally occupied site brook on the west side, about a quarter or a place for intermittent refuge. It of a mile down the hill. Mystic Fort is was· during the Middle Historical Pe­ estimated to have contained as many as riod (c. 1660-1680) that Palisade No. 3 70 wigwams, which would have repre­ was built, going around the stone foun­ sented a fairly large population. In­ dation of a building that must predate deed, Captain Underhill, one of the En­ the construction of the palisade. The glish leaders, says that 400 "souls" per­ manner of the construction of the stone ished in half an hour (Ceci 1990: 60; building indicated to Williams that it Underhill1638). The fort compound, in was built by Europeans rather than by a circular palisaded structure, encom­ Indians. Palisade No. 3 was probably passed about two acres. The description built about 1670-1675 in connection with of the fort construction is given by King Philip's War, enclosing a much Philip Vincent, one of the participants smaller ·area than the original fortifi­ in the battle (Vincent 1638). cation. There was a heavy concentra­ The site of what is believed to be tion of occupational debris around the the Mystic Fort was located in 1987 by stone foundation at the southeast comer Kevin McBride of the University of of the fort. Connecticut. The area, a hilltop, is There was a very large amount of presently referred to as Pequot Hill, wampum manufacturing debris recov­ and has recently been developed for ered at Fort Shantok datable to the housing. Farmers in previous days had Early Historical Period (Williams picked up aboriginal Indian and colo­ 1972: 180). Wampum manufacture ap­ nial artifacts from neighboring plowed pears to have declined markedly in the fields. A local resident reported that Middle Historic Period. Fort Shantok his father had told him about a circu­ is the type site for the historic Shantok lar embankment that had extended for aboriginal ceramics (Rouse 1947; Smith several rods in diameter across a field 1950). on the summit of Pequot Hill (McBride 1990: 98). Plowing turned up charred wood, corroded bullets, and Indian Mystic Fort relics in this area. The Mystic Pequot Fort is one of the Among the artifacts recovered, best known Indian forts in New England McBride (1990) says that the most im­ history (McBride 1990; Orr 1897; Sal­ portant find was pottery similar to the wen 1978; Washburn 1978). It was Niantic-Hackney Pond type in the raised to prominence by the disastrous Windsor tradition. This is a special massacre of the Indians by the English kind of ceramic found only on late 16th­ and their allies on May 26, 1637. We and early 17th-century sites in eastern have several eyewitness accounts ·and Connecticut. They are distinguishable even a drawing of the battle scene from the Fort Shantok types of wares (Underhill 1638). The Indian allies of fourtd associated with Mohegan sites ·the English were the Mohegan, Narra­ along the Thames River. No mention gansett, and Niantics. The Pequots, un­ was made of wampum manufacturing der their sachem, Mamoho, were re­ debris on Pequot Hill. Like Forts Shin­ ported in the colonial literature to necock and Montauk, which were also 74 . Forts of NeW England-New York!Solecki placed on high hills some distance from ter, Its location on a protected water­ estuaries, we believe that wampum way made it readily accessible to ship­ manufacturing took place close to the borne traders. It is thought that the raw material source. fort was used during the spring and McBride suggests that the existence summer months, mainly by Niantic of fortified villages, at least in eastern men. During these periods, the Connecticut,.is related to European con­ occupants lived within the fort tact. The fortified villages were larger enclosure. than standard Pequot villages, which The fort, which had been pal­ were "almost without exception" situ­ isaded, now comprises a roughly ated along estuaries (McBride 1990: squared earthworks, each side not quite 101). In 1636, John Endicott razed two 160 ft (48 m), with a total area of about Pequot villages (unfortified) on the 25,500 sq ft (229.5 m2) or a bit larger Thames River. This action sparked the than half an acre. There were bastions Pequot War of 1637. on three of the corners.. There is a con­ tinuous low embankment around the perimeter composed of stone rubble and Fort Hill earth.. The embankment evidently was A lesser known Pequot fort, a con-, thrown up to support the palisade temporary ot Mystic Fort on Pequot walls. According to the descriptio!\ of Hill, was located on Fort Hill at Wein­ the works, the posts were apparently shauks, near Groton. It was on the east driven into the ground. From this it is side of the mouth of the Thames River inferred that the ends of the posts had (see FIG. 1). The paramount sachem of been pointed, most likely with a Euro­ this fort was Sassacus (McBride 1990: pean iron axe. All of the features of the 101-103). It has a terminus date of structure suggest that this fort had been 1637, · following the defeat and engineered after European design with dispersion of the Pequots ·by the the help of European tools. English.. Some Pequots were assigned to The site takes its name from the the English as spoils of war. About 200 historic Niantic chief, Ninigret, whose to 300 Pequot warriors, and presumably name was a household word in early their families as well, melded into the historical Connecticut. Fort Ninigret is Mohegan tribe during the period dated between 1620 and 1680. Within following the Pequot War (McBride the precincts of the enclosure evidence 1990:105). of occupation was recovered. These in­ clude aboriginal lithic tools and deb­ itage waste, European trade goods, cmd Rhode Island Indian Forts food refuse. Ninigret is notable as a Fort Ninigret, now a part of Fort wampum manufactory. Following Ce­ Ninigret State Park, in Charlestown, ci's (1980) reasoning, Fort Ninigret may Rhode Island, was the focus of investi­ have been essentially set up as a trad­ gations under the direction of Bert Sal­ ing post where wampum was made for wen {Grumet 1990: 369; Salwen and the trade. Mayer 1978). The site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on April 28, 1970. Salwen and Mayer Great Swamp Fort (1978) thought that Fort Ninigret was It was only a matter of time before established primarily as a trading cen- the Narragansetts, the successors to the Northeast Historical Archaeology/Val. 21-22, 1992-1993 75

Pequots, had their power broken by Eu­ on Block Island, Rhode Island. It was ropeans in a rather similar massacre. in described as a native fort in 1661 and an 1675 (Brasser 1978; Washburn 1978). English fortification in 1705. Grumet Their large palisaded village in the (1990: 138), citing McBride's 1989 re­ Great Swamp near West Kingston,like port, says that there was no evidence of the Mystic Fort, became a virtual village palisades or of wampum pro­ death trap for the occupants. About 300 duction, although both had been noted warriors and more than 300 women and in the records. children were killed. The site of the battle has never been precisely located (Grumet 1990: 137-138) .. The fort was Conclusion also known as King Philip's Fort. It In this survey of nine contact period was located in a swamp on a piece of Indian fort sites in southern New Eng­ firm ground. about three or four acres in land and coastal New York, we have area. The fort was palisaded, but was some definitive information with never quite .finished. Inside the which to test Ceci's (1980) hypothesis. perimeter was reported to be a clay She (Ceci 1980: 78, 82) suggests that the wall. The earthworks were built under Indians who wished to encourage Euro­ the direction of "Stonewall John," an pean traders seeking wampum located Indian engineer. He may have been their sites close to deeper waters so aided by a renegade white man. The that their ships could dock. Ceci (1980: Great Swamp Fort was described by 84) took the position that the Indian Lion Gardiner (Johanneman 1983: 8-9; "forts" (her quotations), which were in Penhallow 1859: appendix 181-183). use between 1635-1665, appear to be a Ellis and Morris (1906: 150-151) say new type of site in the local area. She that the fort had flankers and block­ was of the opinion that they had been houses in addition to the stockade. The specifically promoted by European in­ attackers were able to cross the swamp vestors, whose major incentive was the because it was frozen at the time. production of wampum for the trade (Ceci 1982, 1990). Only one site on Long Island, Fort Other Forts in the Coastal Area Massapeag, which may have been built Undoubtedly there were other forts under the supervision of the Dutch in within the area of our survey, but we 1656, meets Ceci's criteria for a trading have no firm knowledge of them. Men­ station. Because of its small size, it tioned in the literature was an Indian could not have served as a refuge from '~fort" that had been attacked by the possible attack for a large Indianpopu­ Dutch in 1644 on Strickland's Plains at lation. It was a wampum manufactory. Poundridge, Westchester County, New Fort Corchaug, although it is accessible York (Brodhead 1859:I: 390-391). Some to a major waterway, appears to have 500 Indians were said to have been functioned as a refuge as well as a slaughtered there, while the Dutch wampum manufactory. Its construction suffered only 15 wounded. No archaeo­ was evidently done without the aid of logical reports that we know of have· metal tools. Forts Montauk and Shin­ confirmed this event. necock, located on commanding McBride (personal communication, hilltops, well away from navigable 1991) investigated the Fort Island site water, were recognized refuges from 76 FOrts of New England-New Y ork/Solecki possible attack. No wampum or Massapeag, Shantok, and Ninigret) wampum manufacturing debris was that may be considere4 as bona fide. In­ found on either site, although the exca­ dian trading stations. · One of. these, vation tests were limited in scope. Fort Shantok, had apparently been con­ In Conn.ecticut, the only known site structed in pre-contact times, and was meeting Ceci's criteria iS Fort Shantok. ·only later readapted for. use as a trad­ It was only in the later period of the ing station. Hence while Ceci's argu­ fort's occupation that we have ment· for the use of Indian forts as trad­ wampum in considerable quantity, ing stations appears to be a reasonable however. The other two forts, Mystic claim, it cannot be applied as a blanket Fort and Fort Hill, were on commanding statement. elevated hilltops, well away from navigable water. No wampum manufacturing debris is recorde4 from References these sites. It should be also noted that Barck, Dorothy C., ed. both Mystic Fort and Fort Hill were 1926- · Papers of the Lloyd Family of the 192 7 Manor of Queens Village, Lloyd's built in the early circular style, Neck, Long Island, New York, without bastions. 1654-1826. Collections of the In Rhode Islan4, we have one clear New-York Historical Society 59- candidate for a wampum trading sta­ 60. tion, Fort Ninigret. Wampum manufac­ Beauchamp, W. M. turing debris was recovered in quantity 1891 Earthworks and Stockades. The Ameri.can. Antiquarian and Orien­ from the site. We know much less about tal Journal13(1): 42-51. King Philip's Fort site. We have no ev­ 1905 Aboriginal Use of Wood in New i4ence from it regarding. wampum pro­ York. New York State Museum duction. But the site was not on naviga­ Bulletin 41: 75-146. ble water, and it was evidently purely Bayles, Richard N. . a large defensive structure, apparently . 1874 Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk County. Port built with knowledgeable supervision Jefferson, NY. and European methods. Current ar­ chaeological investigations on the Brasser, Theodore ]. C. 1978 . Early Indian-European Contacts. Block Island site may resolve the ques­ In Northeast, ed. by Bruce G. Trig­ tions about the native fort that report­ ger, 77-88. VoL 15 of Hand-book edly existe4 there in the 17th century. of North American Indians, ed .. by William G. Sturtevant. Smithso­ The building of forts by local nian Institution Press, Washing- coastal Indians appears to have been . ton, D.C. well under way before the Europeans Brodhead, John Rome!fl arrived. The conclusion from this is 1859 History o the State of New York, that they were built as defensive mea­ 1609-16 4. Harpers, New York. sures against hostile neighbors. We Burggraf, James D. know that the manufacture of wampum 1938 Some Notes on the Manufacture of was not necessarily tied in with de­ Wampum Prior to 1654. American fenses. Some large fortifie4 structures Antiquity 15: 53-58. which apparently housed large Indian Bushnell, David L. populations were not trading posts. 1919 Native Villages and Village Sites This leaves us with the conclusion East of the Mississippi River; Bu­ reau of American Ethnology Bul­ that out of the nine forts considered letin 69. Washington, D.C. · · here, we have three structures (Forts Northeast Historical ArchaeologyNol. 21-22, 1992-1993 77

Case, J. Wickman Johannemann, Edward 1882 Southold Town Records. The 1983 Stage 1 Cultural Resource Survey Towns of Southold and Riverhead, of Fort Hill and Vicinity, Montauk, N.Y., Vols. 1, 2, Libers A-C. Suffolk County. Long Island Ar­ chaeological Project, Department Ceci, Lynn of Anthiopology, State University 1980 The First Fiscal Crises in New of New York, Sfony Brook. York. Economic Development and Cultural Change 28(4): 839-847. McBride, Kevin A. 1982 TheValueofWampumAmongthe 1990 The Historical Archaeology of the New York Iroquois: A Case Mashantucket Pequots, 1637- Study in Artifact Analysis. 1900: A Preliminary Analysis. In Journal of Anthropological The Pequots in Southern New Eng­ Research 38(1): 97-107. land, ed. by Laurence M. Haupt­ 1990 Native Wampum as a Peripheral man and james D. Wherry, %- Resource in the Seventeenth-Cen­ 116. University of Oklahoma tury World-System. In The Pe­ Press, Norman. quots in Southern New England, ed. by Laurence M. Hauptritan and Miller, Robert L. James D. Wherry, 48-63. Univer­ 1990 Stage II Archaeological Investiga­ sity of Oklahoma Press, Norman. tion of the Bayberry Hills Site Shinnecock Hills, Town of Clinton, De Witt Southampton. Clover Archae­ 1821 A Discourse Delivered Before the ological Services, Inc., Northport. New-York Historical Society De­ cember 6, 1811. Collections of the Orr, Charles New-York Historical Society for 1897 History of the Pequot War. The the Year 1821 3: 321-367. Contemporary Accounts of Ma­ son, Unaerhill, Vincent and Gar­ Denton, Daniel dener. Reprinted from the Collec­ 1670 A Brief Description of New York; tions of the Massachussets Histori­ Formerly Called New Netherlands. cal Society. The Helman-Taylor Ed. by G. Furman, 1845. New Co., Cleveland. York. Parker, Arthur C. Ellis, George W., and John E. Morris 1922 The Archeological History of 1906 King Philip's War. New York. New York, 2 parts. New York State Museum Bulletin, Nos. 235- Ford, James, and Gordon Willey 236, 237-238. The University of 1941 An Interpretation of the Prehis­ the State of New York, Albany. tory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropologist 43: 325- Penhallow, Samuel, Esq. 363. 1859 The HistoT"J:/ of the Wars of New­ England unth the Eastern 1ndians Grumet, Robert (1726). J. Harpel, Cincinnati. 1990 Historic Contact. Indians and Colonists in Northeastern North Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk America, 1497-1783. National 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in Historic Landmark Theme Study, the Northeast. Memoir No. 20. National Park Service, distribu­ New York State Museum and Sci­ tion draft 1, Philadelphia. ence Service, Albany. Hadlock, Wendell S. . Rouse, Irving Benjamin 1947 War Among the Northeastern 1947 Ceramic Traditions and Woodland Iridians. American An­ Sequences in Connecticut. thropologist 49(2): 204-221. Bulletin of the Archaeological Menasha, Wisconsin. . Society of Connecticut 21: 10-25. Hodge, Frederick Webb, ed. Salwen, Bert 1910 Handbook of American Indians 1966 European Trade Goods and the North of Mexico. Bulletin No. 30, Chronology of the Fort Shantok Pt. 1. Bureau of American Ethnol­ Site. · Bulletin of the ogy, Washington, D.C. Archaeological Society of Connecticut 34: 5-39. 78 Forts of New England-New Y ork/Solec/ci

1978 lndians .. of Southern New England Underhill, John . and Long Island: ·Early Peri,od. In 1638 News from America or a New and Northeast, ed.. by Bruce G. Trigger, Experimental Discoverie of New 160476. Vol. 15 of Handbook of England. Reproduced in 1902 by North American Indians, ed. by the Underhill Society of America, William G. Sturtevant.· Smithso­ Brooklyn, New Yorl<. nian Institution· Press, Washing­ ton, D.C. Vander Donck, Adriaen 1656 A Description of New Salwen, Bert, and SusanN. Mayer . Netherland. Collections of the 1978 Indian Archaeology in Rhode Is­ New-York Historical Society, VoL land. Archaeology 31: 57-58. 1 (1841). . ' Smith, Carlyle Shreeve Vincent, Philip 1950 The Archaeology of Coastal New 1638 A !rue Relation of the Late Bat­ York. Anthropological Papers of . tell Fought in New England. · In the American Museum of Natural History of the Pequot War. The History 43(2). New York. ·. Contemporary Accounts of Mason, 1954 A Note on Fort Masf:;apeag. Underhill, Vincent and Gardener, American Antiquity 20: 67--68. ed. by Charles Orr, 1897. The Helman-Taylor Co., Cleveland. Solecki, RalphS. · · 1950 The Archeological Position of Visscher, Nicholas . Fort Corchaug, L.l. and Its Rela­ 1651 Map entitled, Novi Belgii etc. tab­ tions to Contemporary Forts. Bul­ ula multis in lods emendoat a letin of the Archaeological Society Nicolao Joannis Visschero. In of Connecticut. 24: 3-40. The Iconography of Manhattan Is­ 1985 Recent Field Inspections of Two land, 1498-1909, by I. N. Phelps 17th-Century Indian Forts on Stokes. Vol. 1, Pl. 7(b). New Long Island, Forts Massapeag York, 1915. and Corchaug. Bulletin and Journal of the New York State Washburn, Wilcomb E. Archaeological Association 91: 1978 Seventeenth-Century , Indian 26-31. Wars. In Northeast, ed. by Bruce n.d. The Archaeology of Fort Neck, G. Trigger, 89-100. Vol. 15 of Massapequa, Long Island, New Handbook of North American York and Vicinity. Indians, ea. by .William G. Sturtevant. Smithsonian lnstitu~ Squier, F. G. tion Press, Washington, D.C. 1850 Aboriginal Monuments of the . State of New York. Smithsonian · Willouf!hby, Charles C. Contributions to Knowledge, 1849, 1906' . Houses and Gardens of the New Vol2. Washington, D.C. England Indians. American An­ thropologist 8(1): 115-132. Thomas, Cyrus 1894 Rel'ort on the Mound Explo­ Williams, Lorraine rahons of the Bureau of Ethnol­ 1972 Fort Shantok and Fort Corchaug: A ogy. 12th Annual Report of the Comparative Study of Seventeenth B.ureau .of American Ethnology for Century Culture Contact in the the Years 1890-1891. Washing­ Long Island Sound Area. Ph.D. ton, D.C. diss,, New York University. Uni­ versity Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Tooker, William Wallace 1888 The Indian Fort at Montauk. The Sag Harbor Express 29{37), Pt. 1. Sag Harbor, New York. Ralph S. Solecki 1892 Lecture November 21, 1892 at the Texas A&M University Brooklyn Institute (see Miller, Robert 1990: 49). Department of Anthropology 1893 Indian Relics. Long Island Maga­ College Station, TX 77843-4352 zine, ApriL. Brooklyn, New York. 1911 Indian Place-Names on Long Is- land, New York. New York. ·