No. 1 – April 1985

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Vessel hardness is about Moh's 3.0 on interior and exterior surfaces. This relatively soft condition is probably due to weathering which leached away most of the shell temper. Metric Data Lip thickness - 5.5 to 6.5 mm 1 cm below lip thickness - 6.0 to 7. 0 mm Neck thickness - 4.8 to 5.0 mm Body thickness - 5.5 to 7.8 mm Oral diameter - 26 to 27 cm (warped) Vessel height - 32 to 34 cm (fragmentary) DECORATION Decoration Tool Only one tool, a shell edge, was employed in the decoration of this vessel. Although a very similar shell has been elsewhere labelled as a scallop shell (Ritchie 1969: 29), the curvature, relatively short length, 7.8-11.0 mm, and sharp but regular crenulations in the tool edge all indicate that some other as yet unknown, form of shell was employed in the process of decoration. The other shell tool cited above from Martha's Vineyard was apparently about 10.0 mm in length and still another, possibly similar shell tool from the Charles River drainage was 9.0 mm in length (Dincauze 1975: 8). Technique of Application A series of approximately linear elements was produced with a form of simple vertical stamping, which, in this case, was applied with a slightly oblique, rather than absolutely perpendicular, angle in relation to the vessel surface. Work direction seems to have been from left to right or counterclockwise for all stamped elements, as noted for the shell stamped decoration in the Charles River drainage (Dincauze 1975: 8). Motif A shell tool was employed with simple vertical stamping to produce a series of four roughly parallel, annular, horizontal design units around the uppermost portion of the exterior rim (Fig. 3). A fifth set of shell stamped elements, with a perpendicular orientation to the annular units, was used to terminate the decoration at about 32- 33 mm below the lip edge. Each of these five units was composed of numerous stamped elements. <strong>No</strong> other decoration was applied on the exterior and no decoration of any kind was applied on the lip and interior surfaces. EXTERNAL CORRELATIONS Although the relationships of a single ceramic vessel are difficult to determine with much certainty, the possibilities bear some consideration, especially in the case of such a complete vessel.
VOL UME 46, NUMBER 1 7 In terms of the broad Massachusetts ceramic "stage" terminology, this vessel seems best attributable to the earliest portion of "stage 4", when extruded collars appeared along with the confinement of most decoration to the upper rim area and a predominant semiglobular cylindrical vessel form (Fowler 1966). In this scheme, the absence of castellations is unusual, but not unknown in "stage 4" contexts, especially in the earliest developments (Le. Greene 1961) and such a vessel might be cross-dated to about A.D. 1400 (Fowler 1966; Snow 1978:66, 1980:329). More detailed comparison of the Chilmark vessel revealed that it is certainly not attributable to protohistoric/ethnohistoric contexts (after about A.D. 1600) on the basis of other such ceramics in southern New England and Long Island (Le. Mrozowski 1980; Rouse 1947; Salwen 1969; Simmons 1970; Solecki 1950). The Chilmark vessel further appears distinct from a variety of dated and undated late prehistoric ceramics in the same region (L e. Dodge 1962; Gramly & Gwynn 1979; Greene 1961; Luedtke 1980; Rouse 1947; Salwen 1968; Salwen & Ottesen 1972; Smith 1950), including a few good examples in relative proximity to Martha's Vineyard on Cape Cod (Brewer 1961; Johnson 1962). One possible exception was noted, however, a ceramic vessel from Hyannis on Cape Cod (Vidal et al. 1951: Fig. 6; Snow 1980: Fig. 8.10). Although more elongate, smaller and decorated with incision rather than shell stamping, the Hyannis vessel appears quite similar to the Chilmark vessel on the basis of vessel form. Parenthetically, the Hyannis vessel was related in a general way by its reporters to Niantic phase ceramics of the Windsor tradition, a late prehistoric manifestation on both sides of Long Island Sound (Vidal et al. 1951: 8- 9; see Lavin 1980; Rouse 1947; Salwen & Ottesen 1972; Smith 1950). -- Late Woodland ceramics from Martha's Vineyard have been also related to ceramics of the Windsor tradition by Ritchie (1969: 54) , but only to the Sebonac phase since he apparently believes that Niantic phase diagnostics need better definition (Ritchie 1965: 265; Snow 1980: 325). In any case, Ritchie related Late Woodland ceramics from Martha's Vineyard to late Windsor ceramics on the basis of common usage of cord or "scallop shell" stamping, incision, "corded" exterior surfaces, shell temper, constricted necks and collaring in latest contexts. In point of fact, one of his better examples from stratum 1A at the Hornblower II site on Martha's Vineyard seems to be a nearly precise replica of the Chilmark vessel on the basis of lip form and decoration tool, but with a slightly different motif (Ritchie 1969:29, Plate 10: 3 and 9). Stratum 1A at the Hornblower II site was dated to A.D. 1380± 80 (Ritchie 1969:52). The general description of the available ceramic sample from strata 1A and 1B at Hornblower II, including unarguable scallop shell and other shell stamped decoration, would seem to easily subsume the Chilmark vessel, although attributes of overall vessel form were poorly presented in the highly fragmented Hornblower sample. Comparable small samples were also represented in undated stratum 1 at the Howland <strong>No</strong>. 1 site and stratum 1 at the Peterson site, with the latter dated at A.D. 1565± 90 (Ritchie 1969:210). This later portion of the Late Woodland period was designated Late Woodland 2 by Moffet (1959,1962) in his research on Cape Cod, and again, the Chilmark vessel can be related to ceramics of this period and locale. In sum, we directly relate the Chilmark ceramic vessel to the latest centuries of the prehistoric Late Woodland period on Martha's Vineyard, after about A.D. 1300 or A.D. 1350. It can be broadly related to other Late Woodland ceramics in southeastern New England, sharing stylistic and technological attributes on a general level. However, we believe that the Chilmark vessel provides a clear example from Martha's Vineyard of what Dincauze (1975: 14) has labelled "local traditions and preferences" in the development of aboriginal ceramics in southeastern New England (cf. Fowler various; Dincauze 1976:83-84; Luedtke 1980: 49; Snow 1978: 66). While Ritchie (1969: 53- 54) has suggested that Late Woodland material remains on Martha's Vineyard, including ceramics like the Chilmark vessel,
Page 1 and 2: BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHA
Page 3 and 4: This journal and its contents may b
Page 5 and 6: VOL UME 46, NUMBER 1 a wealth of te
Page 7: VOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 5 Form Figure 3
Page 11: VOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 9 HOLMES, Russe
Page 15 and 16: VOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HULL COLLECTION
Page 18 and 19: 16 BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS AR
Page 22: BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHA
Page 25: VOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 23 The supreme
Page 33 and 34: VOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 31 daughter Bet
Page 35 and 36: VOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 33 BRASSER, Ted
Page 37: This journal and its contents may b
Page 41 and 42: This journal and its contents may b
Page 44: TYPOGRAPHY· OFFICE AID - FOXBORO,

No. 1 – April 1985

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?