University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 2013 Response & Resistance: A Comparison of Middle Connecticut River Valley Ceramics from the Late Woodland Period to the Seventeeth-Century Julie Woods University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Woods, Julie, "Response & Resistance: A Comparison of Middle Connecticut River Valley Ceramics from the Late Woodland Period to the Seventeeth-Century" (2013). Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014. 997. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/997 This thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses 1911 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESPONSE & RESISTANCE: A COMPARISON OF MIDDLE CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY CERAMICS FROM THE LATE WOODLAND PERIOD TO THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY A Thesis Presented by JULIE A. WOODS Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS FEBRUARY 2013 Anthropology © Copyright by Julie A. Woods 2013 All Rights Reserved RESPONSE & RESISTANCE: A COMPARISON OF MIDDLE CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY CERAMICS FROM THE LATE WOODLAND PERIOD TO THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY A Thesis Presented by JULIE A. WOODS Approved as to style and content by: ______________________________________ H. Martin Wobst, Chair ______________________________________ Elizabeth S. Chilton, Member ______________________________________ Oriol Pi-Sunyer, Member ___________________________________ Thomas Leatherman, Chair Department of Anthropology DEDICATION To Mom and Dad who always believed in me. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank a number of people for their support throughout my thesis project. First and foremost, I would like to thank my brilliant and caring advisor, H. Martin Wobst, for his guidance and encouragement throughout this project. From Martin I learned so much about archaeological theory, materiality, and the importance of thinking outside of the archaeological box. I offer special thanks to my thesis committee members, Elizabeth Chilton and Oriol Pi-Sunyer for their insightful comments and thoughtful suggestions on this study. I am particularly grateful to Elizabeth for sharing her extensive knowledge of ceramic analysis as well as the Pine Hill ceramic attribute data. This study benefited significantly from the contributions of several colleagues including: Siobhan Hart who shared her knowledge of the Area D site, the Pocumtuck people and the cultural dynamics of the seventeenth century in the Connecticut River Valley (CRV); Angela Labrador who provided valuable guidance on technical issues and attribute analysis; and Matthew Boulanger and David Hill for conducting the compositional analyses of the Area D, Pine Hill and Fort Hill sherds and clay samples. I would also like to thank Robert Paynter for many helpful discussions on cultural interaction theories and colonization. I am grateful to the Eaglebrook School, Historic Deerfield, Inc, the Pocumtuck Fort Archaeology and Stewardship Project stakeholders, and the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs, for supporting the UMass Amherst Archaeological Field v Schools at Area D as well as my research. A portion of this research was funded by a grant from the Raymond Wood Fund for Excellence in Archaeology and a Sigma Xi Grant-in-Aid of Research. Analyses at Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) were supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Many colleagues shared valuable information, sources, suggestions and moral support throughout the course of this study including: Broughton Anderson, Heidi Bauer- Clapp, Jill Bierly, Matthew Boulanger, Laurie Castonguay, Kit Curran, Dianna Doucette, Jean Forward, Rae Gould, Robin Gray, Eric Johnson, Brian Jones, Kimberly Kasper, Katie Kirakosian, Daniel Lynch, Anthony Martin, and Bonnie Newsom. Finally, I am grateful for the old friends and new friends who inspired me throughout this journey: Andrew, Bonnie, Donna, Jaime, Laurie, Lisa, MB and Robin. Last, but not least, I am especially thankful for my family who never failed to show interest in my research and always offered encouragement, good food, good humor and welcome distractions: my sisters Kate and Janie, my nieces and nephews Nick, Michelle, Kiel, Becca and Elise, and my four-legged friends Pokey, Peter and Tucker. Any flaws in this work are solely my own. vi ABSTRACT RESPONSE & RESISTANCE: A COMPARISON OF MIDDLE CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY CERAMICS FROM THE LATE WOODLAND PERIOD TO THE SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY FEBRUARY 2013 JULIE A. WOODS, B.S., FITCHBURG STATE COLLEGE M.A., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor H. Martin Wobst Native Americans from the middle Connecticut River Valley of New England experienced massive social disruptions during the seventeenth century due to European settlement, but not much is known about their cultural continuities and/or discontinuities during this dynamic period. As an additive technology, ceramics embody the technical choices of potters made at the time of manufacture thus enabling the study of the effect, if any, of colonialism on indigenous material culture and practices in New England. This study examines ceramic assemblages from one Late Woodland period site and one seventeenth-century site in Deerfield, Massachusetts to explore the extent to which ceramics can demonstrate continuities and/or changes in traditional ceramic manufacturing practices in response and/or resistance to colonization. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1. STUDYING CULTURAL CHANGE AND CONTINUITY THROUGH CERAMIC ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1 Ethnohistory of the Middle Connecticut River Valley in the 15th-17th Centuries ............................................................................................................4 Tensions Mount in the Valley..................................................................................6 A Brief Look at Continuity and Change..................................................................7 Methods: Understanding the Material Culture of Seventeenth Century Native American People/Looking for Continuity and Change..........................9 Cultural Interaction Theories .................................................................................14 Summary................................................................................................................17 2. BACKGROUND ON THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THE MIDDLE CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY .................................................................................21 The Pocumtuck People ..........................................................................................23 English Settlement in the Middle Connecticut River Valley.................................26 Data Set Overview .................................................................................................34 Area D Site Background ............................................................................34 Pine Hill Site Background .........................................................................35 Fort Hill Site Background..........................................................................36 Previous Archaeological Research ........................................................................37 Site Comparability .................................................................................................40 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................42 viii 3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................43 Overview................................................................................................................43 Ceramic Attribute Analysis Methodologies ..............................................43 Area D Ceramic Analysis Methodologies .................................................45 Area D Field-based Sorting Procedures.....................................................46 Cataloging and Selection of Area D Sherds for Analysis..........................46 Technical Attribute Analysis .....................................................................48 TAA & MVL Procedures ..........................................................................50 Data Capture Procedures ...........................................................................51 Overview of Technical Attributes..........................................................................52