the mashantucket pequot museum and research center program in archaeological research and...

7/29/2019 The Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center Program in Archaeological Research and Preservation

1/9

THE MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT MUSEUM AND RESEARCH CENTERPROGRAM IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND PRESERVATION

Brian D. JonesPublic Archaeology Survey Team

ABSTRACTThe Mashantucket Pequot reservation is one of the best-researchedarchaeological landscapes in New England. Cooperation between the Tribe and

archaeologists has been positive and ongoing since the early 1980s. Initial workon the Reservation was focused on ethnohistorical research and thedocumentation ofPequot homesteads as well as important historical sites such asMystic Fort. At this time archaeological work focused on extensivereconnaissance surveys. With the success ofFoxwoods and the expansion of heTribal land base, reservation development increased at a rapid pace and tribalarchaeology shifted to Cultural Resource Management efforts. This resulted innotable increase in data recovery excavations of threatened sites. With theestablishment of the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, datarecovery efforts have continued under a more formalized organization thatincreases cooperation between Tribal departments.

PHASES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND HERITAGEASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL REMAINS ON THE MASHANTUCKETRESERVATION 1983-2003

Phase I 1983-1989: Development of a Historic Context for Sites at MashantucketIn the fall of 1982, shortly before the Mashantucket Pequot tribe was recognizedby the federal government, tribal chairman Richard Hayward approached University ofConnecticut graduate student Kevin McBride while developing ideas for the creation of aMashantucket Pequot museum. Hayward indicated to McBride that there was a lot of"interesting stuff' on the 214-acre Reservation that he might be interested in "checkingout." McBride subsequently confirmed the presence of numerous above ground culturalfeatures and archaeological sites in undisturbed forested settings, recognizing theirsignificance and securing research funding through a National Parks Service Survey andPlanning Grant administered through the Connecticut Historical Commission. Withtribal recognition in 1983, the Reservation's settlement boundary grew to encompass2000 acres and additional funding became available through the Bureau of Indian Affairsunder their program of aid to tribal governments for historic preservation: This grantfunded preliminary studies focused on primary source document research, oral history,

and archaeological surveys.Based largely on this effort, in 1986, the 214 original acres of the 'Mashantucket

77


2/9

78

Reservation was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Also in 1986, theflrst Cultural Resource Management (CRM) survey was conducted on the grounds of theproposed Tribal Bingo Hall. In 1987, the tribe received a National ParkService/Connecticut Historical Commission Survey and Planning Grant to conductreservation-based ethnohistorical research and to locate the site of the Mystic Fortmassacre of 1937 on the west bank of the Mystic River in the town of Groton. This sitewas successfully found and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in1990.

During the 1980s, archaeological activity focused on reconnaissance andsensitivity assessment of the growing Pequot Reservation. Thousands of test pits wereexcavated. Most of the currently known sites on the Reservation were identifled duringthis seven-year period. Despite this level of activity, only six sites were investigatedunder research-oriented data-recovery programs (72-30a, 72-31, 72-34a, 72-34b, 72-39and 72-99). Just 232 square meters were excavated during this phase of research. Muchof this excavation was accomplished by the University of Connecticut's Field School inArchaeology program directed by Dr. McBride. A 1987 Historic Restoration Fund Grantprovided funding to examine 3 late eighteenth century Pequot farmsteads (72-41, 72-85,and 72-70b) and conduct initial assessment of Native land-use patterns on theReservation (PAST, Inc. n.d.). McBride (1990), summarized archaeological research onthe Reservation during this phase in a presentation at the Mashantucket Pequot HistoricalConference of 1987.Phase II 1990-1998: Tribal Economic Development and CRM-based Archaeology

With the success of the Mashantucket Bingo Hall and soon thereafter theFoxwoods Casino, funding for further economic development became available to thetribe and a period of intensive building projects ensued. During this time, the tribe wasable to purchase a large amount of land within and around the settlement boundaryestablished when it was federally recognized in 1983. This increased the scope ofarchaeological survey to about 2000 acres. Projects included Casino expansions, parkingfacilities and large housing developments with the associated infrastructure of roads,water and sewer lines. McBride now refers to this era as the "nineties scramble."This period began with the accidental discovery of the Long Pond Cemetery byprivate developers just south of the Reservation. The flnd came to light just after passage

of legislation protecting unmarked graves, the Native American Graves and RepatriationAct (NAGPRA), and the establishment of the Connecticut Native American AdvisoryCouncil created to mediate between parties when there was an accidental discovery ofhuman remains. This law provided for negotiation between landowners, developers,town planners and the Native community to resolve issues of preservation, excavation,and repatriation. Long Pond was a very successful flrst test of the law in Connecticut andremams an example of functional cooperation between numerous potentially hostilefactions.

In the spring of 1992, the Secretary of the Interior designated the MashantucketPequot Indian Reservation Archaeological District as a National His'toric Landmark


3/9

(McBride and Grumet 1996). This area comprised some 1600 acres of Federal TrustLands within the designated Reservation settlement area. That same summer, the Fort atMashantucket, a 17'h century fortified site, was located during an archaeological surveyprior to construction of a maintenance facility (McBride 1996). Cooperation with tribalplanners resulted in the complete avoidance of the site area and excavations there wereable to follow a research design path rather than focus on rescue-driven data recovery. ANational Parks Service grant provided additional funds for archaeological and historicaldocumentation of this rare historic period native fort.

This was probably a first successful test of cooperative negotiation and planningbetween tribal departments which had in principle agreed that where it was "prudent andfeasible" archaeological sites were to be avoided during development (see e.g. McBride1995). Another example followed shortly when a power plant facility for the casino wasrelocated after the discovery of the Late Paleoindian Hidden Creek site 72-163 (Jones1997, 1998). When it was not possible to avoid destruction, sites were excavated. Thisperiod therefore marked a shift to much more intensive data recovery efforts across theReservation.

Some important sites excavated at this time included the two late eighteenthcentury farmsteads 72-66 and 72-161, a prehistoric multi-component site, 72-55(Tveskov n.d.), the fITst phase of intensive data recovery at the Early Archaic base campSandy Hill, 72-97 (Forrest 1999), and numerous smaller historic and prehistoric sites (e.g.Jones 1999). During the eight years of this phase of CRM-based archaeological activity,129 sites were investigated (about sixteen per year) and over 1800 square meters wereexcavated during data recovery efforts. While University of Connecticut Field Schoolscontinued to focus on Reservation sites, most of the excavation was performed by thePublic Archaeology Survey Team, Inc.Phase ITI 1998-the present: Tribal Archaeology Through the Mashantucket PequotMuseum

The opening of the Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center in 1998marked an important transition in Reservation archaeology. Relationships betweenarchaeologists and tribal departments were formalized with the development of amuseum research department with full-time staff. Twelve full-time positions pertain toheritage preservation and archaeology at the museum and include: The Tribal Historic Preservation Officer and Museum Director. Two Administrative Directors within the Research Department, whocommunicate with tribal members, council and tribal development departments,and oversee department organization and direction. A Tribal Historian, who is supported by two full-time research assistants andstudent interns.

79


4/9

80 Four full-time archaeologists, who are responsible for fieldwork and laboratoryanalysis are supported by three to four part-time employees, as well as internsand some volunteers. The Museum Conservator, who also is a specialist in soil microstatigraphy andanalysis. The Museum Curator, who is an authority on 18 th century Native Americanmaterial culture.Formalized relations between the museum and the tribe's development plannerscurrently insure that the research department must participate in the planning andimplementation of all ground-disruptive projects. Because avoidance is not alwayspossible, and the pace of economic development has not slowed since the construction ofthe museum, CRM-based reconnaissance and data recovery continue to be the rule.However, there has been a clear shift to more detailed data recovery efforts since a fulltime staff has been present at the museum. The museum now operates under a mixed

research/CRM-based model that allows more detailed block excavation.of important sitesto occur than is normally feasible under typical construction budgets and timetables. Asnoted, this transition began during the mid-1990s but did not establish itself as a standarduntil after 1998. Exemplary projects that have enjoyed reasonably intensive datarecovery include the late 18th century farmstead 72-208, the second phase of excavationat Sandy Hill, 72-97 (Forrest 1999), the Late Archaic Preston Plains site 114-93, andmost recently the Lake of Isles data recovery proj ect. The Lake of Isles proj ectencompassed the excavation of two dozen historic and prehistoric sites over a two-yearperiod, as well as detailed document research. Most of these excavations benefited fromUniversity of Connecticut Archaeological Field School participants, many of whomcontinued excavations after the field school ended.

Other important preservation efforts included extensive NAGPRA research forthe Mashantucket Pequot tribe under a National Parks Service grant that culminated inthe repatriation of human remains and funerary objects in 2001 and 2002. The researchdepartment also received a Cultural Heritage and Preservation grant through the NationalPark Service Historic Preservation Fund, to assess a large area of the Reservation knownas Indiantown. This project consisted of both primary document research and anintensive effort to map all visible cultural features on the landscape, includingfoundations, wells, animal pens, old road systems, miles of stone fences and hundreds ofstone field-clearing piles. For the first time, many of the farmsteads initially surveyed inthe mid-1980s were tied to probable Pequot families and dates of occupation. During thisphase of museum-directed archaeology on the Reservation, fifty-two sites were examined(about ten per year) and over 1400 units were excavated during data recovery efforts.ASSESSMENT

Figure 1 summarizes field archaeology efforts at Mashantucket for the threephases discussed above. I have simplified the extensive data in the archaeological


5/9

inventory to reflect only reconnaissance (Phase I & II test-pitting) and data recovery(Phase III excavation) efforts in terms of annual artifact yield. This is meant to provide asense of the focus and degree of archaeological research for these three phases. It isevident that work through the 1980s (Phase I) was primarily concerned with site locationefforts. Nearly thirty percent of all inventoried artifacts recovered from this period stemfrom reconnaissance test pits. The data recovery emphasis under tribal economicdevelopment activities is evident in the next bar. Ninety percent of all artifacts recoveredbetween 1990 and 1997, came from data recovery contexts. Additionally, the number ofartifacts recovered per year increased by over an order of magnitude during this period,indicating the new intensity of recovery efforts. Since the construction of the museum,data recovery efforts have swamped those of reconnaissance. This partly reflects the factthat most currently known sites on the Reservation had been located by this time, but isalso an expression of the increased focus on research-oriented block excavations. Theoverall intensity of excavations has more than doubled under museum-basedarchaeological management as expressed in the annual artifact yield since the mid-l 990s.Nearly 3500 square meters have been excavated unde;r data recovery efforts since the1980s. Importantly, the number of sites examined during each phase of activity atMashantucket has held relatively constant at about twelve per year.

CONCLUSIONSWhile it is clear that historic preservation efforts have been intensive since thecreation of the museum, the graph shown can also be interpreted in another way. In anideal world, most archaeological sites would be preserved and data-recovery would belimited. While this may be one of the goals of most historic preservation efforts it is

seldom feasible. On the Reservation, as across the rest of the state, CRM mitigationefforts involve a sometimes complex dance of compromise between developers andarchaeologists. On the Reservation, the spatial constraints of a very limited land-baseinsure that historic resources are often unavoidable. In the end, when avoidance is notpossible, archaeologists must be satisfied with the opportunity to sample the materialrecord at most archaeological sites. While our efforts to remove as much significantinformation as possible from most sites have generally been successful, compromisebetween the economic needs of the tribe and the research desires of the archaeologist, isalways the reality.While historic preservation efforts at Mashantucket have been both intensive andvery successful, there is always room for improvement. Planning and developmentdecisions can occur very rapidly within the organization of tribal government. Thissometimes results in hurried reconnaissance and data recovery schedules. The tribe'sproperties department that oversees construction projects maintains a GeographicalInformation System (GIS)-based inventory of important cultural resources on thereservation. Current mapping and excavation proj ects now take advantage of state of theart GIS technology based on the use of a network of precise ground control points and theextensive use of total stations equipped with data collectors. Nevertheless, the spatial

81


6/9

80

Four full-time archaeologists, who are responsible for fieldwork and laboratoryanalysis are supported by three to four part-time employees, as well as internsand some volunteers. The Museum Conservator, who also is a specialist in soil microstatigraphy andanalysis. The Museum Curator, who is an authority on 18 th century Native Americanmaterial culture.Formalized relations between the museum and the tribe's development plannerscurrently insure that the research department must participate in the planning andimplementation of all ground-disruptive projects. Because avoidance is not alwayspossible, and the pace of economic development has not slowed since the construction ofthe museum, CRM-based reconnaissance and data recovery continue to be the rule.However, there has been a clear shift to more detailed data recovery efforts since a fulltime staff has been present at the museum. The museum now operates under a mixed

research/CRM-based model that allows more detailed block excavation.of important sitesto occur than is normally feasible under typical construction budgets and timetables. Asnoted, this transition began during the mid-1990s but did not establish itself as a standarduntil after 1998. Exemplary projects that have enjoyed reasonably intensive datarecovery include the late 18th century farmstead 72-208, the second phase of excavationat Sandy Hill, 72-97 (Forrest 1999), the Late Archaic Preston Plains site 114-93, andmost recently the Lake of Isles data recovery proj ect. The Lake of Isles proj ectencompassed the excavation of two dozen historic and prehistoric sites over a two-yearperiod, as well as detailed document research. Most of these excavations benefited fromUniversity of Connecticut Archaeological Field School participants, many of whomcontinued excavations after the field school ended.

Other important preservation efforts included extensive NAGPRA research forthe Mashantucket Pequot tribe under a National Parks Service grant that culminated inthe repatriation of human remains and funerary objects in 2001 and 2002. The researchdepartment also received a Cultural Heritage and Preservation grant through the NationalPark Service Historic Preservation Fund, to assess a large area of the Reservation knownas Indiantown. This project consisted of both primary document research and anintensive effort to map all visible cultural features on the landscape, includingfoundations, wells, animal pens, old road systems, miles of stone fences and hundreds ofstone field-clearing piles. For the first time, many of the farmsteads initially surveyed inthe mid-I980s were tied to probable Pequot families and dates of occupation. During thisphase of museum-directed archaeology on the Reservation, fifty-two sites were examined(about ten per year) and over 1400 units were excavated during data recovery efforts.

ASSESSMENT

Figure I summarizes field archaeology efforts at Mashantucket for the threephases discussed above. I have simplified the extensive data in the archaeological


7/9

82

database needs further refinement that will more adequately clarify actual site boundaries,rather than approximate central locations.Because of the huge number of recovered artifacts, most museum laboratoryresources are spent on artifact inventory maintenance. Time for site analysis is short. I fthe pace of development slows, the immediate goal is to shift the museum focus to

laboratory analysis and report preparation. There is a wealth of information in ourrecords that awaits fonnal publication.Finally, while the museum director is the acting Tribal Historic PreservationOfficer, the tribe has yet to formalize a Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THIPO) withthe Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. Once done, this will provide some additional fundsfor the museum staff. Currently, the tribe has consultant status for federal and statearchaeological projects within New London county and parts of Southwestern RhodeIsland. The establishment of a formal THIPO office will streamline and formalizecommunication between the tribe and federal and state agencies.To summarize, archaeological and historical research of lands owned by theMashantucket Pequot Tribe has been intensive over the last two decades. This relativelysmall land area of ca. 4000 acres (which includes the Reservation as well as nearbyproperties), is probably the best understood small archaeological landscape in theNortheast, and is certainly one of the most carefully examined in North America. Awealth of archaeological data has been wrested from the earth across this landscape,though much of it remains to be fully assessed. On this research-oriented level,preservation has been remarkably successfuL However, in terms of site avoidance andpreservation, there is still ground to be gained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI am grateful to Dr. Kevin McBride (MPMRC & University of Connecticut) forhis help and discussions in putting together this short summary of tribal archaeology onthe Mashantucket Pequot Reservation and to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council fortheir generous support of archaeology on the Reservation for the past two decades. Anyhistorical or other inaccuracies are solely the responsibility of the author.

REFERENCES CITED

Forrest, Daniel1999 Beyond Presence and Absence: Establishing Diversity in Connecticut'sEarly Holocene Archaeological Record. Bulletin of he ArchaeologicalSociety ofConnecticut 62:79-98.

Jones, Brian1997 The Late Paleoindian Hidden Creek Site in Southeastern Connecticut.Archaeology ofEastern North America 25:45-80. '


8/9

1998 Human Adaptation to the Changing Northeastern Environment at the Endof he Pleistocene: Implications for the Archaeological Record.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut. UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor, No. 9906705.

1999 The Middle Archaic Period in Connecticut: The View FromMashantucket. Bulletin of he Archaeological Society ofConnecticut62:101-123.

McBride, Kevin A.1990 The Historical Archaeology of the Mashantucket Pequots, 1637-1975. InThe Pequots in Southern New England: The Fall and Rise ofan AncientAmerican Nation, edited by 1. M. Hauptman and J. D. Wherry, pp. 96-116. University of Oklahoma Press, London.1995 CRM and Native Americans: An Example From the Mashantucket PequotReservation. CRM18:3:15-17.1996 The Legacy of Robin Cassacinamon: Mashantucket Pequot Leadership inthe Historic Period. Northeastern Indian Lives, 1632-1816. Edited byRobert S. Grumet. University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.

McBride, Kevin A. and Robert Grumet1996 The Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation Archaeological District: ANational Historic Landmark. Bulletin of he Archaeological Society ofConnecticut 59: 15-26.

Public Archaeology Survey Team, Inc.n.d. Final Report, FY 1987 Historic Restoration Fund Grant, ArchaeologicalInvestigations Sites 72-41, 72-85, 72-70b/59. Prepared for theMashantucket Pequot Tribal Council and the Connecticut HistoricalCommission by the Public Archaeology Survey Team, Inc. P. 1. KevinMcBride, Field Directors David George and Ross Harper, ProjectManager Mary Soulsby. Unpublished report on file at the MashantucketPequot Museum and Research Center.Tveskov, Markn.d. A Preliminary Report on Excavations and Analysis ofSite 72-55,Mashantucket, Connecticut: Unpublished report on file at theMashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center, submitted 1992.

83


9/9

84

Annual Artifact Yield at Mashantucket

45000

iii ph III (data recovery)40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

01998

Figure 1. Average annual artifact yield at Mashantucket during the three phases ofReservationarchaeology summarized in the text: 1983-1989, 1990-1997, and 1998 through thepresent. Note that the proportion of artifacts recovered during phase I&I1reconnaissance surveys has dropped steadily over time as emphasis shifte"d"to phaseIII data recovery excavations. Also apparent is the dramatic rise in recovered artifactsas archaeologists intensified excavations on the Reservation.

the mashantucket pequot museum and research center program in archaeological research and...

Documents