“Monuments to a Nation Gone By”: Fortified Houses, King Philip's War, and the Remaking of a New England Frontier, 1675-1725 By Colin A. Porter B.A. Amherst College, 2005 M. A. Brown University, 2009 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Anthropology at Brown University Providence, Rhode Island May 2013 © 2013 by Colin A. Porter This dissertation by Colin A. Porter is accepted in its present form by the Department of Anthropology as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date____________ _____________________________________ Patricia E. Rubertone, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council Date____________ _____________________________________ William S. Simmons, Reader Date____________ _____________________________________ Douglas D. Anderson, Reader Date____________ _____________________________________ Kevin A. McBride, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date____________ _____________________________________ Peter Webber, Dean of the Graduate School iii CURRICULUM VITAE Colin A. Porter 98 Sefton Drive Cranston, RI 02905 (401) 286-3224 Colin_Porter@brown.edu EDUCATION Ph.D. in Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, RI, May 2013 Dissertation: “'Monuments to a Nation Gone By': Fortified Houses, King Philip's War, and the Remaking of a New England Frontier, 1675-1725” A.M. in Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, RI, May 2009 Research paper: “Gravestones and King Philip’s War: Commemoration in Seventeenth-Century New England” B.A. in History, cum laude, Amherst College, Amherst, MA, May 2005 Thesis: “Popham, Piscataqua, and Penobscot: English Settlement and the Fur Trade in Northern New England, 1607-1635” Summer Field School in Archaeology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, June 2003 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island Teaching Fellow, Brown University, Department of Anthropology, Spring 2013 Proctor to the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, Fall 2012 Instructor, Brown University Continuing Education, Summer Studies, Summer 2011 Teaching Assistant, Department of Anthropology, Fall 2008-Spring 2009; Spring 2010-Spring 2011 Proctor to the Chair, Department of Anthropology, Fall 2009 American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York Field Technician, Saint Catherines Island, Georgia, 2006 Lab Researcher Intern, North American Archaeological Laboratory, 2005 Public Archaeology Laboratory (PAL), Pawtucket, Rhode Island Field Archaeologist, 2006 iv New York University Library, New York, New York Assistant Papyri Conservator, Bobst Preservation Department, 2005 Historic Deerfield, Deerfield, Massachusetts Assistant Coordinator, Summer Fellowship Program in Material Culture, 2005 Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts Research Assistant, Department of Geology, 2004-2005 Collections Assistant, Pratt Museum of Natural History, 2003-2004 Teaching Assistant, Department of Geology, 2003-2004 University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services (UMAS), Amherst, Massachusetts Field Technician, 2004 SCHOLARSHIP Refereed Publications “'Uncomfortable Consequences': Colonial Encounters at the Jireh Bull House in Narragansett Country.” Under review at Rhode Island History. Unpublished Manuscripts “Public Archaeology at Cocumscussoc: Report on Excavations at Updike's Barn in April and May 2012.” In prep for submission to the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission. “Inventory of Artifacts from the Jireh Bull House Site (RI-926) in the Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2012. Internet Publications “Independent Research: Proctor at the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology.” Museum Anthropology Blog, March 5, 2013. http://museumanthropology.blogspot.com/2013/03/student-spotlights-lithic- analysis-at.html “Exploring the Haffenreffer's Lithic Collection.” Haffenreffer Museum Blog, March 5, 2013. http://haffenreffermuseum.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/exploring-the-haffenreffers- lithic-collection/ v “Making Ends Meet at Cocumscussoc: The Material Culture of Bondage in Narragansett Country, Rhode Island.” Explore Historical Archaeology Projects. Society for Historical Archaeology website, 2010. http://www.sha.org/research/rhode_island.cfm Lectures and Conference Presentations “The Unsettled Country: Remaking the Colonial Landscape of Narragansett Country after King Philip's War.” Paper presented at Competing Visions: Changing Landscapes in the Past, Present, and Future, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, March 2013. “Native Presence and Persistence at Fortified Houses in New England.” Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association, Mashantucket, Connecticut, July 2012. “Cultivating Amnesty: Rebuilding Narragansett Country after King Philip's War, 1680- 1700.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland, January 2012. “The Jireh Bull House at Pettaquamscutt: Archaeology of a Fortified House in Narragansett Indian Country.” Invited lecture at the Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, October 2011. “A Garrisoned Homeland: Fortified Houses and Intercultural Change in Narragansett Country, Rhode Island, 1642-1729.” Paper presented at the Graduate Student Forum in Early American History, Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, June 2011. “Excavating Irish Americans: Human Skeletal Remains, Ethnicity and (No) Emotion.” Paper presented at The Body as Site and Sign: A Multi-Disciplinary Conference on the Body, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, April 2009. “Making Ends Meet at Cocumscussoc: The Material Culture of Bondage in Narragansett Country, Rhode Island.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Amelia Island, Florida, January 2010. “Presenting the Popham Colony: Robert Davies and his Diary.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, Deerfield, Massachusetts, July 2006. FELLOWSHIPS, GRANTS, AND AWARDS Watson-Smith Prize for Best Anthropology Paper, Brown University, 2012 vi Graduate Student Fellowship, Brown University, 2007-2012 Summer Research Grant, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, 2008 TEACHING EXPERIENCE Teaching Fellow, Brown University, Department of Anthropology Global Historical Archaeology, Spring 2013 Instructor, Brown University, Continuing Education Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, Summer 2011 Teaching Assistant, Brown University, Department of Anthropology Identity and Images of Indian Society, with Dr. Lina Fruzzetti, Spring 2011 War and Society, with Dr. Catherine Lutz, Fall 2011 Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology, with Dr. Paja Faudree, Spring 2010 Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology, with Dr. Marcy Brink-Danan, Spring 2009 Material Culture Practicum, with Dr. Patricia Rubertone, Fall 2008 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Session Chair “Cry Havoc: The Archaeology of War.” Conference session at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland, January 2012. Committee Member Long-Range Site Planning Committee, Cocumscussoc Association at Smith's Castle, 2010- present. Conference Organizer The Body as Site and Sign: A Multi-Disciplinary Conference on the Body (with Dr. Sherine Hamdy, Coleman Nye, and Sara Mathiessen), Brown University, April 2009. RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Principal Investigator Cocumscussoc/Smith's Castle (RI-375), North Kingstown, Rhode Island Field Excavation: Developed a community archaeology program in consultation with the Cocumscussoc Association to identify 17th-18th-century barn foundations using 1802 plat map and spatial analysis in GIS; ran in conjunction with “Bridge to the vii Past” program at museum (April-June 2012). Laboratory Analysis/GIS Development: Produced a digitized catalog of approximately 40,000 prehistoric and historic artifacts by archaeological context, calculated mean-ceramic and pipe stem dates for each context, and produced spatial density distribution maps at Brown University (January 2011-January 2012). Jireh Bull Blockhouse Site (RI-926), South Kingstown, Rhode Island Walkover and Laboratory Analysis/GIS Development Conducted site walkover and processed, cataloged, analyzed, and conserved nearly 3,000 historic artifacts previously excavated artifacts on loan from the Rhode Island Historical Society at the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, (January 2011-January 2012). Consultant 70 Cold Spring Avenue, North Kingstown, Rhode Island Phase I survey of historic house foundation to determine date of construction for mitigation of deconstruction, directed by Dr. Richard Greenwood (May 2011). Harvard Forest, Petersham, Massachusetts Phase I/II survey of historic house foundations and house lot, as part of Harvard University field methods course, directed by Dr. Thomas G. Garrison (August- September 2009). Field Archaeologist/Technician Old House, John Greene Farm, Warwick, Rhode Island Phase III survey of 17th-century house foundation, as part of Greene Farm Archaeological Project, directed by Drs. Krysta Ryzewski, Caroline Frank, and Ninnian Stein (June-August 2008). Long Field Crescent, Meetinghouse Field, and AMNH 697, Saint Catherines Island, Georgia Walkover survey, topographic mapping, and geophysical remote sensing of prehistoric shell middens, directed by Dr. David Hurst Thomas (November 2006). Public Archaeology Laboratory, Pawtucket, Rhode Island Conducted Phase I, II, and III excavations of prehistoric and historic sites (May- November 2006). Massachusetts: J.T. Berry (North Reading), St. Joseph’s Cemetery (Roxbury), Hillside at 495 (Northborough) Rhode Island: Rhode Island Veterans’ Cemetery (Exeter), Trestle Trail Quarry Site 3 (Coventry), Coventry Greenway (Coventry), Ames House Cemetery (Cranston), Camp Fogarty (East Greenwich) Pennsylvania: Valley Forge National Park (Valley Forge) viii New Hampshire: East Kingston Cell Tower (East Kingston) University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services, Amherst, Massachusetts Conducted Phase I and II excavations of prehistoric and historic sites (May-August 2004) Massachusetts: Greenbush Underpass (Hingham), Route 6 Right-of-Way (Cape Cod), Route 2 Traffic Improvements, (Athol). W. E. B. DuBois Homesite, Great Barrington, Massachusetts Geophysical remote sensing and field excavation of historic site as part of Umass- Amherst summer field school, directed by Dr. Robert Paynter (July-August 2003) ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without the support of many individuals who graciously extended to me their time and expertise. I am deeply indebted to my graduate advisor, Pat Rubertone, for her careful reading and extensive comments on several early drafts, as well as six years of mentorship and teaching. I am also thankful to my readers: to Bill Simmons for his exhaustive knowledge of Rhode Island history and to Doug Anderson for his insightful critiques when writing the dissertation proposal. Finally, I thank Kevin McBride for joining my dissertation committee, for sharing with me his ongoing research at Mystic Fort and Nipsachuck, and for his expertise dealing with the lithic artifacts from Cocumscussoc. This project also depended on the external support of numerous individuals and institutions. I am grateful to the Rhode Island Historical Society, particularly Kirsten Hammerstrom and Dana Signe Munroe, for helping me obtain access to the artifacts from the Jireh Bull House Site and to the site itself. And thanks to Sheldon Pratt and David Borkman from the South Kingstown Land Trust for helping me locate it. The staff at the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology, particularly Kevin Smith, Thierry Gentis, and Steven Lubar, was also instrumental in providing the institutional resources and physical space to pursue artifact analysis. The members of the Long Range Site Planning Committee of the Cocumscussoc Association at Smith's Castle were likewise prevailing supporters of the x project, especially Darrell McIntire and Neil Dunay who know the site and house better than anyone. The Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission, particularly Charlotte Taylor, Paul Robinson, and Rick Greenwood, kindly provided data and conversation to guide this research. I am extraordinarily grateful to the Department of Anthropology at Brown University for their financial support during my graduate studies and dissertation research. I am further humbled by the emotional support provided by the office staff—Kathy Grimaldi, Margie Sugrue, and Matilde Andrade—since moving to Providence. And I offer eternal thanks to my graduate cohort for so many wonderful years: Caitlin Walker, Sohini Kar, Stacey Vanderhurst, Susan Ellison, James Doyle, and Laura Vares. Finally, I will forever be thankful to my parents, Roy and Susan, for teaching me to finish what I start, to my wife, Caitlin, for her unwavering patience, and to Reece and Nell for being themselves. xi CONTENTS Signature Page iii Curriculum Vitae iv Acknowledgments x List of Tables and Figures xiii 1 Introduction 1 2 Making War at Home 34 3 A Garrisoned Homeland 72 4 The Unsettled Country 112 5 Architecture of Restoration 150 6 Fragments of Native Lives 199 7 Remembering Garrison Houses 255 Bibliography 282 xii LIST OF TABLES, MAPS, AND FIGURES No. Description Page 1.1 The Cradock Garrison House, Medfield, Massachusetts 5 1.2 Plan of the Bray-Rossiter Farm, Guilford, Connecticut 14 1.3 Native Southern New England ca. 1675 18 1.4 Jireh Bull Blockhouse Site 22 1.5 Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site 23 2.1 Map showing principal sites of attack during King Philip's War 37 3.1 Archaeological resources in Rhode Island 75 3.2 Colonial settlements in Rhode Island, ca. 1650 81 3.3 Garrison houses in Narragansett Country during King Philip's War 89 3.4 17th-Century Narragansett Indian Sites in Rhode Island 90 3.5 View of the Pettaquamscutt River from the Jireh Bull House Site 101 4.1 Advertisement to settle Narragansett Country published in Boston, 1678 120 4.2 Route of Pequot Path through Narragansett Country 135 5.1 Exterior of Eleazer Whipple House, late-19 th century 155 5.2 Exterior Photograph of Eleazer Whipple House, 1941 157 5.3 Arthur Fenner House, late-19th century 159 5.4 Artist's Reconstruction of Plymouth Fort, 1622 160 5.5 Detail of 1802 plat map of Lodowick Updike's Farm 161 5.6 Reconstructed Plan of Arthur Fenner House 164 th 5.7 Plan drawing of Eleazer Whipple House, late-19 century 166 5.8 Artist's reconstruction of the Thomas Greene House, circa 1795 168 5.9 Excavations at the Jireh Bull House, 1917 176 5.10 Artifacts collected from the Jireh Bull House, 1917 178 5.11 Composite Site Map of Jireh Bull House Site 181 5.12 Architectural Sequence of Jireh Bull House 183 5.13 Pipe stem and bowl assemblage from the Jireh Bull House Site in processing 185 5.14 Dating the Jireh Bull House Site 186 5.15 Photomicrograph of window lead (926-220) from the Bull Site 188 xiii 5.16 Artist's reconstruction of Smith's “great house” 191 5.17 Earliest mean-ceramic date in each area of excavation at Cocumscussoc 194 6.1 Commemorative marker near the Jireh Bull House Site 203 6.2 Drawing of Smith's Castle showing 19th-century modifications 208 6.3 Plan of archaeological investigations at Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site 211 6.4 Lithic Tools from Smith's Castle 217 6.5 Additional lithics from Cocumscussoc 218 6.6 Artifact assemblage found in walls of Smith's Castle during renovations 219 6.7 Broken and reused pestle found at Jireh Bull House Site (926-416) 225 6.8 Rhyolite flake from Jireh Bull House Site 226 6.9 Gunflints from Cocumscussoc 231 6.10 Modified gunflints from Cocumscussoc 235 6.11 Gunflint core from the Jireh Bull House Site 238 6.12 Micrographs of worked and unworked glass from Cocumscussoc 243 6.13 Worked globe-shaped wine bottle necks from Cocumscussoc 244 6.14 Worked glass (a,b) and shatter (c) from the Jireh Bull House Site 246 6.15 Comparison of worked and unworked glass from Jireh Bull House Site 247 6.16 Worked glass scrapers from Jireh Bull House Site 248 6.17 Detail of worked glass (926-982)from Jireh Bull House Site 249 7.1 1729 Plat Map of Henry Bull's Farm 258 7.2 Two 18th-century representations of Mary Rowlandson's garrison house 262 7.3 The Rhode Island Mace at the inauguration of the Governor of Rhode Island 266 7.4 Fourth of July pageant, Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1912 272 xiv 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION There is to me a pleasure in visiting the ruins of some old garrison house... They are to us what the ivy crowned battlements of the old world, are to its inhabitants, they are monuments of a nation gone by... [T]here are still tales and traditions, recorded of the ruins of those log habitations which are scattered over New-England. Our aged and grey headed ones, can still relate tales of the fierce border warfare... It was from one of these, that the incidents of the tradition following the description of the old garrison house were gathered; it has been preserved through the lapse of a century by oral tradition, handed from father to son (Levou 1830:33). Warfare ravaged Native and colonial settlements across the New England frontiers from the summer of 1675 to the autumn of 1676. Known commonly, albeit erroneously as King Philip's War,1 the conflict began as a local disagreement between the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay and the Mount Hope band of Wampanoag Indians when the sachem, Metacom, called Philip by the English, refused to appear before a court in Boston on a charge of murdering a Nipmuck Indian interpreter. The two colonies then conscripted a large army and marched it to the town of Swansea in Plymouth Colony where a group of soldiers shot at several Indians who returned fire. The violent rebellion drew in the other Wampanoag bands and then the remainder of the Algonquin peoples of Native New England. Under threat of attack, colonial officials forced Native leaders to either pledge fealty 2 to the English government or join the rebellion against them; Native peoples fought on both sides of the conflict. For a period of 18 months, violence spread in waves across New England, from settlements along the Atlantic coast to the Hudson River Valley and back. Eventually, Native allies of the English caught and executed rebel leaders, including Philip, and the war drew to a bloody close. By war's end, demographers estimate several hundred colonists and many thousands of Natives—between 56 and 69 percent of the indigenous inhabitants of New England—had died (J. Drake 1999:169). When King Philip's War erupted, colonists living along the frontiers found themselves unprepared for—and particularly vulnerable to—a large-scale, long-lasting, and violent confrontation with the Native bands living nearby. English colonists had constructed forts in New England since 1607 (Brain 2001), but by 1675 these defensive structures were limited to port cities and designed primarily for protection against French and Dutch raids. As the war spread from Plymouth across New England, colonial officials briefly considered building a border wall to separate Native and colonial settlements, but decided the plan was infeasible. Notwithstanding the construction of several new forts, more commonly used to hold Indian prisoners than for military defense, local government officials designated one or more prominent houses in each colonial settlement to serve as places of collective defense from and counter-attack against Native Americans. In 17th-century histories of King Philip's War, colonists referred to these expedient fortifications as “garrisons,” “garrison houses,” and “fortified houses.” The strategy proved ineffective against quick, devastating Indian raids. 3 Although colonial governors encouraged those colonists living on the frontiers to retreat to more populated centers, which were better prepared for defense, many colonists remained— and died—on their homesteads. During the war, garrison houses became particularly important symbolic, as well as strategic, sites for Natives and colonists. Most of the violent engagements perpetrated against colonists occurred at garrison houses, and all of the (ultimately more violent) military expeditions against Natives relied on them as points of rendezvous, rest, and recovery. Natives eventually razed many of these structures during the war—some while still occupied, others after they had been abandoned. Testament from the vivid detail contained in wartime narratives, garrison houses were sites of engagement between Natives and colonists in New England during King Philip's War. Not only did attacks obliterate these former dwellings, but also they reconfigured colonists' relationship with the Natives living beyond their walls. The war's combatants were not strangers engaged in anonymous battle, but familiars who had maintained a longstanding, albeit tenuous peace for decades through bonds of trade, religion, and geographical proximity. The war changed much between Native and colonial peoples and the extent of this transformation was manifested, in part, through the transformation of dwelling houses from domestic sites, to military sites, to scenes of violence, and finally sites of ruin. Yet, these were also sites of restoration in the aftermath of the war, places where colonists returned to rebuild their houses and reconstruct social relations with the Native peoples of New England. In this era, too, reconstructed garrison houses both 4 reflected and created the nature of engagements between Native and colonial peoples. Beginning in the era of the American Revolution, colonists turned to garrison houses as symbols of their forebears' triumph over the wilderness and its savage inhabitants. Thomas Hutchinson, the last Royal Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, first wrote about these sites systematically. In every frontier settlement there were more or less garrison houses, some with a flankart at two opposite angles, others at each corner of the house; some houses surrounded with palisades; others, which were smaller, built of square timber, one piece laid horizontally upon another, and loop-holes at every side of the house; and besides these, generally in any more considerable plantation there was one garrison house capable of containing soldiers sent for the defense of the plantation, and the families near, whose houses were not so fortified (Hutchinson 1795, Vol. 2:67). During the early 19th century, urban antiquarians began exploring the rural landscape for the physical traces of garrison houses. When skulking the countryside in search of sites mentioned in wartime texts, antiquarians discovered only abandoned farmhouses in advanced disrepair (Figure 1.1). Their imaginative interpretations transformed mundane architectural elements into military accoutrements: small windows became “loop holes” to shoot at skulking Indians (Brewster 1859:157; Brooks 1855:62); thick walls filled with brick surfaced as evidence they were “strongly built throughout to resist attack” (Bacon 1898:93); the door—that last line of defense from the Natives—was “a ponderous thing... well braced and barred” (Brewster 1859:157; cf. Brooks 1855:62). Native peoples seldom appear in these antiquarian narratives except as savages skulking in the forests. This dissertation investigates garrison houses in New England beginning with their 5 Figure 1.1: The Cradock Garrison House, Medfield, Massachusetts Nineteenth-century historians believed that the Governor Cradock House, built as early as 1632, but repeatedly rebuilt and modified, withstood King Philip’s War in its pictured state. Among the defenses attributed to the house were fire-proofed closets and door, circular windows used as loop- holes, iron bars behind the arched windows, walls 18-inches thick,and a single-paned window placed at the back of the chimney to spy attacking Indians (Brooks 1855:46). 6 use during King Philip's War and continuing through the half century of reconstruction that followed, from approximately 1675 to 1725. During this 50-year span, garrison houses served as places of interaction between Natives and colonists on the New England frontiers. The central argument of the dissertation is that these sites were multicultural not only in times of attack and defense, but also in the period of reconstruction that followed the conflict. They were places where the landscape was restored and social relations rebuilt on dramatically different terms. The historical archaeology of these sites can illuminate the changing nature of Native-colonial engagements on the New England frontier through a period of transition from war to post-war. The aims of the study are twofold. First, this study aims to create a more accurate representation of garrison houses grounded in a rigorous, systematic assessment of documentary, architectural, and archaeological evidence. Second, on a more theoretical level, it explores the dissonance between archaeological and antiquarian narratives to understand what these twice-told tales omit, and therefore better understand why they persist. Native presence and persistence at garrison houses is absent from antiquarian accounts which focus on conflict between these groups. I argue that the omission of complex, long-term, cross-cultural engagements prioritizes triumphal narratives of confrontation, and thereby aids in Indian disappearance in New England. Historical Archaeologies of Culture Contact and Colonialism Recently, historical archaeologies of colonialism—influenced particularly by critical 7 theory, practice theory, postcolonial theory, and agency theory (for recent reviews, see Gosden 2004; Jordan 2009; Lightfoot 2006; Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002; Silliman 2005) —have challenged long-held assumptions about the inexorable expansion and cultural diffusion of European colonists, and the domination and acculturation of indigenous peoples (e.g., Ferris 2009; Given 2004; Harrison and Williamson 2004; Lightfoot 2005; Murray 2004; Rubertone 1989, 1994, 2000, 2001; Silliman 2009). Instead, archaeologists excavating “implanted settlements” (Stein 2002: 30) find pluralistic cultural contexts where the colonizers and the colonized negotiated myriad, complex, ambivalent, and often ambiguous relationships—whether in the context of subsistence, evangelism, trade, labor, or sex, to name a few (e.g., Loren 2008; Patterson 2008; Rodríguez-Alegría 2005; Silliman 2004; N. Thomas 1991; Voss 2008a, 2008b). Framed by the persistence of Native peoples and cultural practices, despite warfare, epidemics, and exploitation, this dissertation theorizes the nature of change during long-term engagements between Native American and European-colonial groups at sites of physical violence and reconstruction. Historians have long argued that the colonial American frontier between Natives and Europeans—and, in particular, the New England frontier—is an essential feature of national and cultural identity (e.g., Forbes 1968; Lewis 1984; Turner 1914, 1920; Rosenberry 1962). Frontiers, borders, and boundaries—whether environmental, political, or cultural—are particularly rich, albeit challenging, areas of inquiry in archaeological analysis where “cross- cutting social networks” can be observed in the material record (Lightfoot and Martinez 8 1995). Where some archaeologists see the colonial frontier as a “tribal zone” where colonizing states devastated indigenous peoples through the transmission of disease, ecological devastation, and technological change (e.g., Ferguson and Whitehead 1992; cf. Diamond 1998; Jennings 1976), others recognize it as a periphery of extraction for the enrichment of the metropole leading to the unequal accumulation of wealth and social stratification (e.g., Delle 1998, 1999; Orser 1996; Paynter 1982). While the settlement of European populations dislocated and dispossessed Native American peoples from their ancestral homeland, frontiers were not only spaces of physical domination and economic exploitation; they were also a “Third Space,” i.e., a space-in-between (see, e.g., Bhabha 1994; Soja 1996; Wolf 1999), of negotiation and hybridization between colonizers and colonized (Hall 1999; Howey 2011; Naum 2010; Panja 2002). Accordingly, ostensibly fixed colonial frontiers are more accurately described as permeable cultural borderlands: spaces where Native-colonial interaction can be studied to identify cultural continuities, as well as cultural changes (e.g., Cobb 2005; Cusick 2000; Gallivan 2007; Lightfoot 1995; Lightfoot et al. 1998; McBride 1994; Middleton 2008; Mrozowski et al. 2009; Rubertone 1989, 2000; Silliman 2009; Stein 2002). Approaching these borderlands from a shared Native and European perspective can help to further develop an understanding of the interconnections between these groups through the colonial process. Testament to the often violent nature of colonialism, military fortifications, whether large or small-scale, can be identified in most, if not all, geographic regions where Europeans 9 attempted to carve a foothold (e.g., Brain 2001; Lucas 2004; Middleton 2008; Sarmento 2011; Schrire 1995; Voss 2008a; Winer 2001). In archaeological analysis, lines of forts are often understood as physical and architectural representations of imagined frontiers (Coe 2006; Prickett 1981; Stone 1974). Historical archaeologists have often studied forts for the purposes of understanding the the social lives of soldiers or the development of military technology in colonial settings, as highly-visible archaeological sites reflective of broader patterns in the dominant society (e.g., Brain 2001; Crytzer 2012; Fisher 1987; Faulkner 1986; Prickett 1981; D. Scott 2009; Stevenson et al. 2007). Yet archaeologists are increasingly cognizant that forts were neither entirely military in function nor exclusively colonial in identity (e.g., Clements 1993; Floore and Jayasena 2010; Jayasena 2006; Schrire 1995; Schrire and Deacon 1989; Voss 2008). Of particular relevance to this study, archaeological excavation of fortified sites in colonial contexts frequently yields indigenous artifacts lying “cheek by jowl” with European ones (Schrire 1995:103), thereby demonstrating that these places of war were also places of interaction between supposed combatants (cf. Dye 2009). While rarely imagined as military sites, the bulk of military activity during King Philip's War occurred in and around domestic house sites located along the colonial frontier. The spatial analysis of houses provides insight into the ordering of society (e.g., Blanton 1993; Rapoport 1969; Oliver 1987). In colonial contexts, vernacular architecture visually embodies social processes leading to the emergence of a distinct setter society (e.g., Deetz 10 1996; Glassie 1969, 1975, 2000; Harrington 1989; St. George 1982; Upton 1979, 1983 1997). Seriation in colonial domestic architecture reveals ideological transformations among colonists, as well as their relationship to Native peoples (e.g., Connah 1998, 2001; Grguric 2008; Winer 2001; cf. Winer and Deetz 1990). Archaeologists have discovered that indigenous people frequently conducted “low-visibility activities” within colonial houses, as well (Deagan 1983). However, Natives in colonial spaces were far more common than popularly believed because their identification continues to mistakenly rely on the discovery of “traditional” artifacts (Silliman 2010). Although colonial domestic architecture was meant to subordinate non-elites (Jamieson 2000; Leone 2005), colonists did not always realize their ambitions (Connah 1998), a disjuncture that calls into question the difference between the intended and received meaning of colonial domestic architecture in a wider borderland and homeland context (Markell 1993; cf. Low 1995). Archaeologists are increasingly cognizant of the presence of non-Europeans around colonial sites and the consequences of intercultural encounters in shaping the house lot (Markell et al. 1995). By exploring “beyond the foundations” of architectural cores (Steadman 1996; cf. Hutson et al. 2007; Robin and Rothschild 2002), archaeologists have identified previously unseen evidence of changing spatial practices on colonial sites (e.g., Kostro 2006). Adopting the approach that the habitual routines of daily life can reveal the structures of social life in multi-ethnic contexts, archaeology conducted outside house walls has revealed previously unrecognized uses of space in creating social relations between 11 cultural groups in colonial encounters (Lightfoot et al. 1998). By envisioning an intercultural “taskscape” emphasizing peoples’ dwelling in rhythm with land, nature, and space (Ingold 1993), archaeologists can recognize both the faint traces of Indian labor used to build the colonial environment (Silliman 2001, 2010; Voss 2008b), as well as violations of colonial spatial structuring (Fitts 1996, 1998), in order to write more complex “life histories” of borderland domestic sites (Ashmore 2002). Rethinking Garrison Houses as Sites of Colonial Encounter After recognizing the similarity between English colonists' perceptions of the Irish and Native Americans, scholars began looking for similarities in the built environments of colonial Ireland and North America (see, e.g., Canny 1973, 1988; Gillespie 1985; Hume 1982; H. Jones 1942; Kupperman 2000; Quinn 1965). Anthony Garvan (1951) first hypothesized that colonists relied on a town plan used by English colonists in Ireland to allow rapid retreat to a centrally-located place of defense in times of attack against Native Americans (see also Deetz 1993:41; Hodges 2003). Archaeological excavation at Martin's Hundred near Jamestown, Virginia, occupied in the early 17th century, revealed an enclosed house in a hierarchical arrangement above a bilateral town plan similar to arrangements of company towns in Ulster (Hume 1982). The central element to the Anglo-colonial town in Ireland was the “bawn,” a traditional Irish architectural form: 12 A defensible courtyard hose walls… protected the house, family, and personal property of the plantation’s principal landlord. The house could be freestanding… [or] placed against one of the peripheral walls… met at small corner flankers, from which the entries to the complex could be adequately monitored and defended from the “wild Irish” (St. George 1990: 242). The grammar of this fortified house plan has been interpreted as a physical representation of the contradiction in the colonial process: to simultaneously extract and defend commodities for the European marketplace, and convert to the Protestant faith those who performed the labor and supplied raw goods (St. George 1982, 1990, 1998). Architecture and archaeology provide physical evidence for the diffusion of “independently defensible houses” across the English colonies (Prickett 1981). As new frontiers opened for English colonial expansion, from the 16th through 20th centuries, English settlers constructed fortified houses of different vernacular styles to accommodate variation in military technology, construction practices, and environmental contexts. In Teranaki, New Zealand, English colonists dispossessed indigenous Maori rebels and imposed British law through a series of wars between 1860 and 1881 through the use of fortified houses. The archaeology of these sites reveals the influence of British garrisons and a dependency on the imperial economy (Prickett 1981). In contrast to these planned military structures, architectural seriation in the British colonial settlements along the Eastern Cape of South Africa, from 1820 to 1860, shows the incorporation of defensive works, such as gun slits and enclosed cattle pens, into existing architectural forms. This period of defensive modification, what Margot Winer (1990) calls an “Architecture of Fear,” corresponds with 13 increasingly hostile relations between British colonists and native Xhosa. By contrast, fortified houses in South Australia and the Northern Territory built between 1847 and 1885 vary little from “typical” (i.e., non-military) dwellings, suggesting they were primarily domestic sites that have assumed greater importance over time as part of a frontier mythology (Grguric 2008). Evidence for the transmission of fortified houses from Ireland to New England is provided primarily by two architectural drawings. The first, a 1635 house plan showing a dwelling surrounding a central courtyard by John Winthrop, Jr., who had been commissioned to establish and govern the Saybrook Colony (annexed by Connecticut in 1644) and had studied previously at Trinity College, Dublin, reveals the influence of bawn- like architecture traits in the formal design of a New England plantation (Garvan 1951). The second, a court-yarded farm plan drawn by Bray Rossiter, of Somerset, circa 1652 in Guilford, Connecticut, provides additional evidence of the indirect influence of bawns, as reinterpreted through vernacular English forms, over colonial architectural design in New England (Figure 1.2). The plan shows a walled architectural complex consisting of a centrally located house, peripheral outbuildings adjoining the exterior palisade, and courtyards occupying the open spaces. As St. George (1990: 247) describes, “the Rossiter farmstead is multistranded, and its meanings spring from the variety of landscapes that conditioned its emergence.” Construction based on these house designs is only tenuously supported by 18th- century land deeds, which identify certain elements from the plans. Yet, documentary 14 Figure 1.2: Plan of the Bray-Rossiter Farm, Guilford, Connecticut The Bray-Rossiter Farm was designed ca. 1652-1660 in Guilford, Connecticut. The plan contains elements of fortified compounds used during the 17th-century colonization of Ireland, including the central “greate Court” similar to that of the bawn, as reinterpreted through English and Anglo- colonial vernacular architecture. The extent to which the design was realized is unknown, but select elements appear in 18th-century land deeds (St. George 1990:244). 15 evidence alone does not provide satisfactory answers as to whether the designers’ ambitions were ever realized, or when the houses were constructed and modified. The most well-known garrison house site in New England is the R. M. Site in Plymouth, Massachusetts named after the initials inscribed on a latten spoon found there. Archaeologists excavated the site sporadically between the 1940s and 1990s (see Plimoth Plantation 2011) and recovered 12,643 artifacts dating to between 1625 and 1675 (Welch 1964). Based on this date range and the site's location near the mouth of the Eel River leading into Plymouth Bay, James Deetz (1973:22) hypothesized it represents the remains of the Clark(e) Garrison House, attacked and burned during the so-called Eel River Massacre of March 12, 1676 when a party of 11 Indians raided and burned the house and killed some of the family members hiding inside. The few available statistics on the casualties disagree— Increase Mather wrote 11 had died, but Plymouth Colony court transcripts suggest only 2 perished—perhaps revealing an attempt to inflate the number of victims (Chartier 2001). The site's connection to King Philip's War was established by gun furniture and hardware excavated from the site, as well as the discovery of a feature with a great quantity of lead shot, sprue, and castings (Beaudry and George 1987; Chartier 2001). Yet, when archaeologists reexamined the artifact assemblage in 1987, no positive attribution was possible because only 1,156 of the excavated artifacts could be located (Beaudry and George 1987). The work of searching for and identifying fortified houses from King Philip's War is ongoing. As recently as the summer of 2011, a group of avocational archaeologists under 16 professional direction uncovered the traces of a house in Millis, Massachusetts believed to be the remains of the George Fairbanks house built circa 1658. Prior to a search for the site, oral tradition had long stated the house served as a place of refuge in times of Indian wars; Metacom's band attacked the Fairbanks house in February 1676. Archaeological excavation uncovered the traces of a stone house with a double chimney and later cellar hole, suggestive of a cross-passage plan. Artifacts show evidence of a iron working, ceramics dating between the mid-17th and mid-18th centuries, one 1655 “Oak Tree” shilling, various European accoutrements, as well as unidentified artifacts suggesting a Native American presence. The site remains largely unpublished because the landowners demanded a low public profile and non-intervention by government agencies in the project as a precondition to excavation. The current interpretation of the site is that it was originally an Indian encampment that was built over by George Fairbanks (LaCroix 2011). The discovery of “traditional” Native American artifacts on garrison house sites in New England should not be surprising; these dwellings were built atop Native homelands occupied for millennia prior to European colonization. As recent cross-disciplinary scholarship on colonialism has demonstrated, indigenous peoples were not passive, but active participants in the colonial process. Yet, as is the case for many Colonial period sites, indigenous-manufactured artifacts and their European-manufactured counterparts have often been segregated into prehistoric and historic site components based on the expectation that their intermingling results from depositional and erosional processes rather, than social 17 relations between Natives and Europeans. Native American material culture on these military, European colonial sites presents another, more considerable challenge: material evidence of cultural interaction at colonial fortifications contests established triumphal narratives of these sites as places of heroic victory, and demonstrates a need to consider the way in which they contribute to mythologies of colonial conquest. Study Methodology This dissertation focuses on a particular homeland within the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations (hereafter, Rhode Island) known as Narragansett Country: the ancestral homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Figure 1.3). King Philip’s War is generally interpreted as a watershed for Native-colonial relations in Rhode Island, as in New England, which represented the violent transition from trade and exchange to labor and domination (Bossevain 1956, 1959, 1975; Nowlin 2005; Simmons 1983). While one historian argues “only a degenerate remnant attempted to preserve a traditional life” following King Philip’s War (Sainsbury 1975), scholars across the disciplines are increasingly aware of the persistence of Native New England tribes and the maintenance of their cultural traditions (e.g., Calloway 1997; Den Ouden 2005; Mrozowski et al. 2009; Feder 1994; Reiser 2010). Among the Narragansett Indians, oral traditions and archaeological evidence both argue against complete acculturation (Berleant-Schiller 2002; Brown and Robinson 2006; Herndon 2001; Herndon and Sekatau 1997; Rubertone 1989, 2001, 2008). Despite 18 Figure 1.3: Native Southern New England ca. 1675 This map shows the general locations of major confederacies in New England ca. 1675 with the modern state boundaries overlaid (modified after Bragdon 1996; Reiser 2010; Vaughan 1995). 19 colonial, state, and Federal attempts to eradicate the Narragansett tribe (see Boissevain 1959), the Narragansett Indians have maintained a self-conscious ethnic identity into the 21st century (Baron et al. 1996; Berleant-Schiller 2002; Herndon 2001; Herndon and Sekatau 1997; Robinson 1994). In Narragansett Country, King Philip's War is an ongoing process of reconciliation, as descendant communities continue to struggle with a horrific past and its consequences in the present. Drawing on the diverse methodology of historical archaeology, this dissertation weaves together varied strands of evidence related to fortified houses in Narragansett Country to understand the changing nature of engagement between Native and colonial peoples at these sites. As a unique, interdisciplinary approach to the study of the past, historical archaeology draws on and critically engages with multiple lines of evidence, both documentary and material (e.g., Andrén 1998; Leone and Potter 1988; Moreland 2006; Mytum 2010; Orser 2010). This approach is particularly well-suited to contribute to an understanding of colonial sites where Native Americans and other minority groups are often poorly or altogether undocumented by examining the dissonance between documentary and material lines of evidence (e.g., Beaudry et al. 1991; Galloway 1991, 2006; Hall 1999; Paynter 2000; Scott and Fox 1987). Dissonance is central to this dissertation not only in the sense of friction among and between different lines of evidence, but also between narratives about fortified house sites proffered by historical archaeology and folk tradition (see Gazin- Schwartz and Holtorf 1999). This project aims to better understand the social and historical 20 construction of these sites in the present (Brumfiel 2003), or, put slightly differently, to understand how people position themselves in the past, present, and future vis-a-vis garrison houses by invoking particular, invented traditions (see, e.g., Dietler 1994; Friedman 1992; Hobsbawn and Ranger 1983; Upton 1996). Historical research provided the foundation for this study. During the course of research, I consulted nearly all of the 17th-century narratives of King Philip's War to understand the use, form, and significance of garrisons used in the conflict. I used other historical documents—diaries, letters, probate inventories, land deeds, town minutes, laws, and wills—to identify particular garrison houses in Narragansett Country. Additional documents dating to the 18th through 20th centuries sketched in the outlines of these sites by providing long term histories of site occupation and the description of the sites themselves: architectural plan drawings, maps, drawings, and photographs. In nearly all cases, these documents are published, and I quote from them in their published form. Unfortunately, many of the sites discussed in the following pages no longer exist, neither as foundations nor as archaeological sites, having been torn down and in some cases built over during the 19 th and 20th centuries. Often, drawings, photographs, and descriptions from the late-19th century are the only pieces of evidence remaining to inform a contemporary understanding. Thus, the resulting interpretations of architectural form and seriation are in large part dependent on earlier interpretations; they are certainly fallible, but I think leaving sites out of the research area would be a greater injustice by circumscribing the variation in physical form 21 and social life surrounding these sites. While historical documents contain a great deal of information about garrison houses during and after King Philip's War, they are largely bereft of data relating to daily life, and especially in relation to Native peoples. Archaeological research represents core of this project. During the course of the project, I compared artifacts previously excavated from the two remaining garrison house sites built in Narragansett Country: the homes of Richard Smith, Jr. and Jireh Bull. The nature of work focused on prehistoric and historic artifacts: domestic items, such as potsherds, glassware, and farm tools; architectural remains, such as nails and window leads; and Native American lithic tools and “chipped” wine bottle glass. Archaeologists have repeatedly espoused, but not necessarily followed, a “conservation model” for existing archaeological data and the need to approach extrusive excavation as a last resort (Bohnert and Surovik-Bohnert 1991). Historical archaeological sites are particularly large in collection size, and as a result have rarely been properly curated. However, reanalysis of existing site data demonstrates the usefulness, if not the ethical responsibility, of holding existing collections to new types of inquiry (e.g., Beaudry and George 1987). This project, in part, attempts to redress previous inattention to artifacts excavated from the two garrison houses in Narragansett Country by digitizing them and offering a framework for future curatorial efforts—and eventually, further excavation. The first site investigated was the Jireh Bull House Site (RI-926) in South Kingstown, Rhode Island (Figure 1.4). The site has been twice excavated: first, in 1917 by 22 Figure 1.4: Jireh Bull Blockhouse Site This photograph, taken during a walkover of the site in September 2011, shows its current condition; it is overgrown, but undisturbed since it was last excavated in 1981. 23 Figure 1.5: Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site This photograph, taken in January 2013, shows the location of the National Historic Landmark site adjacent to the National Register house museum (currently under renovation). 24 workmen contracted by several representatives of the Rhode Island Historical Society (Burlingame et al. 1918; Isham 1918; Monahan 1961; Rhode Island Historical Society 1925); second, in 1981 by students from Brown University under the direction of Stephen Mrozowski (Mrozowski 1981; Ried 1987; Zinnieri 1982). Today, the site and the majority of artifacts excavated from it are in the collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society in Providence, Rhode Island. During the last 25 years, the site has become overgrown and the collection of artifacts has languished. In December 2010, the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology reached an short-term loan agreement with the RIHS, and the collection was transported to the Collections Research Center in Bristol, Rhode Island where I conducted a reanalysis of the historic artifact assemblage. In September 2011, I secured permission to visit the site from the RIHS, and conducted a walkover of the site the following month. Although the site was highly disturbed during the excavation in 1917, it has remained largely undisturbed since it was last excavated. The second site studied was the Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site (RI-375) in North Kingstown, Rhode Island (Figure 1.5). This National Historic Landmark archaeological site is owned and maintained by the Cocumscussoc Association at Smith's Castle, an historic preservation society, which also operates an associated house museum, Smith's Castle, a 17th- and 18th-century Georgian house. Beginning in 1972, archaeologists began a systematic survey of the site focusing on the front yard of the Castle where a trading post and garrison were believed to have been located. Archaeologists excavated the site again 25 in 1973, 1989-1992, 1994, 2007, and 2012 (Rubertone and Fitts 1990, 1991; Rubertone and Taylor 1992; Clements 2008). Nearly all of the artifacts from the site are curated in the Giddings Anthropology Laboratory at Brown University where they serve as a teaching and reference collection. To facilitate comparison to the Jireh Bull Site, I digitized 40 years of archaeological data records from the original artifact catalog and excavation records and created a spatial database of all excavation units and their levels in a Geographic Information System. I also re-analyzed the lithic and worked glass artifacts that had been previously set aside as “small finds” in light of similar artifacts in the collection from the Jireh Bull Site. Outline of Chapters This dissertation consists of seven chapters weaving together different strands of evidence. Chapters two, three, and seven draw primarily on documentary evidence, whereas chapters four through six rely increasingly heavily on archaeological evidence. The chapters also progress through time: chapters two and three consider garrison houses during King Philip's War, chapters four through six investigate these sites in the war's aftermath, and chapter seven places them in as sites of collective memory from the 18 th through 20th century. Finally, the chapters are also increasingly particular. Each succeeding chapter focuses on an increasingly small, more refined body of evidence; whereas chapter two begins with a broad comparison of garrison houses during King Philip's War, chapter six ends with a consideration of individual artifacts from two sites. Tabular data referenced throughout the 26 dissertation concerning both site dating and artifact assemblages is contained in appendices. The second chapter, Making War at Home, examines fortified houses during King Philip's War through a critical reading of war and postwar narratives. These documents provide a foundation for understanding the built environment at these sites. They further reveal a social history of these sites which brought together neighbors and strangers, men and women, masters and slaves, and Natives and colonists. The context of interaction between Natives and colonists was not not only attack and defense, but also protection and imprisonment. This chapter demonstrates the importance of garrison houses as places of aggregation during the war for Native and colonial peoples, alike. Chapter three, A Garrisoned Homeland, takes a “homelands approach” to garrison houses—that is, it places these sites into the context of Narragansett Country. Whereas the previous chapter focuses on the culture of fortified houses during King Philip's War by making panoramic comparisons between houses and regions, the third chapter is concerned with identifying a local, Native-centered history of these sites. It identifies each of the fortified houses built in Narragansett Country and examines their spatial relationships to Narragansett Indian sites through historical documents and archaeological site records. Finally, it uses the Narragansett Indian raid on the Jireh Bull house of December 1675 as a case study to examine the long-term history of colonial collisions over land leading up to this attack. It argues that Native histories of space and place are essential to grasping the significance of these sites and attacks upon them. 27 Chapter four, An Unsettled Country, probes the landscapes of garrison houses in Narragansett Country after King Philip's War. The chapter investigates three related processes related to the rehabilitation of the landscape through an investigation of historical documents: first, the re-peopling of garrison houses and surrounding settlements; second, the renaming of landscape features; and third, the organization of movement between these sites. These three processes reveal colonists' efforts to reclaim and improve the landscape, while simultaneously attempting, albeit unsuccessfully, to constrain Narragansett Indians by confining them to inland regions. I interpret these conflicting spatial practices as evidence of colonists' attempt to ameliorate social anxiety omnipresent in postwar Narragansett Country. The next chapter, Architecture of Restoration, shifts its gaze to the changing vernacular architecture of fortified houses in Narragansett Country after King Philip's War through an examination of documentary, architectural, and archaeological evidence. The chapter looks broadly at the issue of vernacular architecture as a physical process of remaking sites of violence and a social process of revising the history of these sites. It seeks to document two related architectural practices. First, it examines reconstruction or rebuilding in the immediate aftermath of the war. Second, it investigates renovation—modification and new construction—to the reconstructed dwellings. Whereas colonists rebuilt most garrison houses to their prewar specifications, they adopted a range of architectural inspirations, including a turn toward conservative architectural styles. I interpret this evidence as an effort to not only restore the houses, but also to sanitize the sites of the horrors of the recent past. 28 Chapter six, Fragments of Native Lives, examines the evidence of Native Americans at fortified house sites in the postwar era through a comparison of lithic and lithic-like artifacts excavated from the Cocumscussoc and Jireh Bull sites. It focuses on three groups of artifacts: stone tools, gunflints, and worked glass scrapers. In each case, it relates these artifacts to their archaeological context, both spatial and temporal. By bringing this material and contextual evidence into concert, the chapter finds substantial evidence for a Native American presence and the persistence of traditional lithic technologies on these sites during the late-17th and early-18th centuries. The seventh chapter and the conclusion to the dissertation, Remembering Fortified Houses, first sums up the argument presented during the preceding six chapters for the social and cultural significance of fortified houses as places of interaction between Native and colonial peoples during and after King Philip's War. Then, it reflects on the collective memory of these sites, from the 18th through 20th centuries, through an examination of three vignettes. These snapshots at several moments disclose the collective memory of these sites has persisted largely unchanged over this span, and further reveal the dissonance between the history and collective memory of these sites. In particular, Native Americans are shown to be absent from popular narratives, despite their presence during and after the conflict. Finally, the conclusion provides directions for further work. Study Significance 29 The historical archaeology of colonial New England offers a long-term and comparative perspective on cultural encounters between Native and European American peoples. The 17th century was a period of dramatic cultural change in New England affecting both Native and European American communities (P. Thomas 1985). Historical archaeologies have previously demonstrated that Native communities were extensively fortified during King Philip’s War (McBride 1990, 2006; Hart 2009), “Praying Indians” adopted European material culture as a purposeful strategy of resistance (Mrozowski et al. 2009), Native peoples maintained traditional mortuary practices after the war (Rubertone 2001), and European Americans built monuments atop Native landscapes to erase an indigenous presence (Handsman 2008; Rubertone 2008). And King Philip’s War reverberates in contemporary debates over tribal sovereignty, among other issues (Brown and Robinson 2006). This dissertation picks up these strands and adds a different perspective by assessing Native Americans at sites of violence during and after King Philip's War. The nature of engagements between Native and colonial peoples at the end of King Philip's and into its immediate aftermath is poorly understood. The war is often studied on its own (e.g., Leach 1958) or used to represent a disjuncture between the prewar and postwar histories of colonial interaction in New England (e.g., Vaughan 1995). It also fits into an emerging field of scholarship on cross-cultural encounters in the aftermath of King Philip's War that counter narratives of Indian disappearance (e.g., Calloway 1997; DeLucia 2012; O'Brien 1997, 2001; Reiser 2010; Rubertone 2001, 2012; Ulrich 2001:47-74). The effects 30 of the war were particularly profound in Narragansett Country where a system of plantation slavery sprang up in its wake (Fitts 1996, 1998; Melish 1998; Woodward 1971). However, the postwar changes in the region, and New England as a whole, were intimately connected to the horrific events of the war. A major contribution in the historiography of the conflict is to demonstrate that the war did not settle colonial relations between Natives and colonists, but must be understood as part of a longer process of engagement extending from first contact to the present day. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Narragansett Country, like other Native homelands in New England, remained unsettled both in the sense of physical deconstruction and social displacement. Further research on other colonial frontiers of New England is essential to gain a fuller understanding of the cultural practice and the indigenous responses to war. Places of cultural interaction in early colonial New England remain largely unidentified archaeologically , even as historical documents indicate a close geographical proximity between Native and colonial peoples from the the 17th century onward. Simply put, documents often indicate Native-colonial engagements occurred—signing land deeds, trading, proselytizing, among many other contexts—but they do not indicate exactly where these acts occurred. By contrast, archaeologists working in the American Southeast and Southwest have developed “mission archaeology”, and those in the Southeast and Caribbean have produced “plantation archaeology” to understand the formation of complex and long- term engagements between indigenous and colonial peoples in these regions. No corollary 31 sub-field of historical archaeology has emerged in the New England region. Indeed, although historical archaeology developed in New England during the 1960s, as popularized by James Deetz (1996), Native Americans were never considered under its purview (Rubertone 1989, 2000). For several decades, archaeologists working in the region have addressed this omission by focusing on Native communities dwelling the margins beyond sites of European colonization (Reiser 2010; Silliman 2009; Feder 1994). Only recently have archaeologists begun to revisit ostensibly colonial sites intent on searching for evidence of Native peoples among European-manufactured refuse (Mrozowski et al. 2009; Silliman 2010). Thus, the longstanding object of colonial research—the colonial house—can now be seen as a primary space of cultural engagement in New England. This dissertation attempts to place cultural engagements between Natives and colonists in New England through the study of fortified houses. After Voss (2008), it focuses on multicultural histories of ostensibly European colonial sites. However, the project examines these sites for evidence of indigenous peoples and the persistence of cultural practices. Hence, it demonstrates the fuzzy boundaries between cultural categories in the New England colonial context by revealing their intimate relationships between Native and Anglo Americans within colonial spaces (see Stoler 1989; e.g., Hodge 2005; Loren 2008; Plane 2000; Rubertone 1989, 2001; Silliman 2010). By focusing on garrison houses, which are nearly always thought to represent the Euro-American past, this study finds their spatial and social boundaries were more permeable than previously thought. Furthermore, this study 32 demonstrates that affecting changes to Native-colonial relations in the years after King Philip's War depended on a continuity of contact to reinforce the war's outcome. 33 Notes to Chapter 1 1 The proper name of the war of 1675-1676 has been debated since its aftermath (See Lepore 1998). William Hubbard, one of the war's first historians refused to call it a war at all preferring instead the term, “troubles.” The name, King Philip's War, was invented in the 18th century, and has become by far the most popular. However, its use presents several historical fallacies, including the fact that the sachem called Philip by the English had taken the name, Metacom, before the war began. Contemporary historians also broadly reject the thesis that Metacom was instigating party in the conflict. As a result, historians have offered a number of alternatives, such as Metacom's Rebellion. However, efforts to rename the war have failed to gain traction and unintentionally confuse readers. Insofar as this dissertation is aimed at contrasting documentary and archaeological evidence from the conflict and its aftermath, I have chosen to use the most common name for the war. 34 CHAPTER 2 MAKING WAR AT HOME I took my children (and one of my sisters her’s) to go forth and leave the house: but as soon as we came to the door, and appeared, the Indians shot so thick, that the bullets rattled against the house, as if one had taken a handful of stones and threw them, so that we were forced to give back. We had six stout dogs belonging to our garrison, but none of them would stir, though at another time, if an Indian had come to the door, they were ready to fly upon him and tear him down (Rowlandson 1682:3). Introduction “Now is that deadfull hour come, that I have often heard of,” recounted Mary Rowlandson (1682:3). “Some in our house were fighting for their lives, others wallowing in their blood, the House on fire over our heads, and the bloody Heathen ready to knock us on the head, if we stirred out.” The catastrophe of King Philip's War—desolate towns, heads staked on poles, disemboweled cattle—drove New England colonists to narrate recent events for their kinsmen at home and abroad (Lepore 1998). Publishers in Boston and London quickly quickly disseminated these accounts and argued over the divine significance of the war's horrors. For many English colonists, the house was an “embodied space:” a physical structure analogous to the human body, with windows for eyes, a door for a mouth, and 35 other architectural elements with bodily correlates (St. George 1998). The eruption of King Philip's War demonstrated the tenuousness of all bodies living along the frontiers, which were hacked apart, disemboweled, and subjected to many other violent ends (Lepore 1998). Houses, like bodies, were acutely sensitive to intercultural violence, and attacks on them were seen, by attackers and defenders alike, as destabilizing to society as the rendering of a corpse. Much in the same way bodies were the medium through which Self and Other were created through the colonial process (Loren 2008), garrison houses served as sites of signification torn down by the engagement of colonial and Indian peoples. While histories of King Philip's War most often investigate garrison houses as sites of violence, in those cases where they are considered at all, a preoccupation with attack and defense omits a culturally diverse and wide ranging social life centered around these sites in the moments between Indian raids or military encampments. Through a critical reading of war and postwar narratives (see Lepore 1998: 241-244), this chapter develops a social history of garrison houses in New England during the war. Between 1675 and 1676, dwelling houses transformed into places of refuge for all those fleeing the conflict, whether colonists, slaves, or non-combatant Natives. These acutely social spaces became places of aggregation where individuals came together to create expedient but ephemeral social relations under the threat of violence. The social context of garrison houses created places of intense social tension which were perhaps more similar to internment camps than military forts. Practices of conscription brought in garrisons of strange men to govern neighbors, establish watches, and 36 organize labor, while women, African slaves, and surrendered Natives found themselves particularly vulnerable to violence. At the same time as garrison houses were reordering frontier society, the congregation of colonists into isolated structures transformed these sites into targets of Indian attack (Figure 2.1). Thus, garrison houses became crucially important places of social engagement, for Natives and colonists alike. “A Good Fortification” After the New England colonies had conscripted soldiers to begin a war against Metacom's band of Wampanoag Indians, their commanders discovered few military structures that could sustain an army in the field. At strategic points—or more often convenient ones—they appropriated dwelling houses for their own military purposes. When the army from Massachusetts Bay marched south to reconnoiter with the Plymouth army at the end of June 1675, they designated certain houses as points of rendezvous between different groups of soldiers. As Hubbard later evoked their march, But after the moon had waded through the dark shadow of the earth, and borrowed her light again, by the help thereof, the two companies marched on toward Woodcock’s house, thirty miles from Boston, where they arrived next morning; and there retarded their motion till the afternoon, in hope of being overtaken by a company of volunteers, …which accordingly came to pass… [and] they were removed to the head-quarters, which for that time were appointed at Mr. Miles’s house, the Minister of Swanzy, within a quarter mile of the bridge, leading into Philip’s lands (Hubbard 1803:75). 37 Figure 2.1: Map showing principal sites of attack during King Philip's War This map shows the modern boundaries between the southern New England states and sites of attack during King Philip's War. Towns attacked during the war are represented by open circles. Colonial capitals are shown in closed circles with capital letters. 38 When the united army of Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth assembled in Swansea to bring back Metacom on charges of murder, Maj. James Cudworth, quartered soldiers at three houses in the town (A Brief and True Narration 1675:5). From the outset of King Philip's War, dwelling houses were seen by colonists and Indians alike as sites of attack, defense, and counter-attack. When the colonial army gathered at Swansea, “most of the English therabout left ther houses” (Easton 1913:11-12). The war formally began, reported one Rhode Islander, when two English settlers saw three Wampanoag “pilfering sum houses that the English had left,” and one of them shot at the Indians, one of whom “fell doune but got away againe” (Easton 1913:12). Later, “sum indians Came to the gareson asked why thay shot the indian. thay asked whether he was dead. The indians saied yea. A English lad saied it was no mater” (Easton 1913:12). The Wampanoag went away from the fortified house, but returned the following day, on June 24, when “the lad that shot the indian and his father and fief English more wear killed” (Easton 1913:12). A second account provides additional details of this inaugural raid. On June 24, “the Indians... set on one of the Garrison houses, and there killed two more and wounded other two; and likewise killed two that were travelling for a Chyurgeon” (A Brief and True Narration 1675:5). An enticing shred of evidence, a piece of intelligence gathered by the colonists, suggests Metacom, “advised sum English to be gon from ther out plases wher thay lived or thay wear in danger to be killed” prior to the attack to avoid unnecessary casualties (Easton 1913:14). 39 Even as hostilities between colonists and the Mount Hope Indians escalated in June 1675, other Natives and colonists attempted to maintain peaceful relations. The fortification of dwelling houses, whether through the construction of defensive works or the garrisoning of soldiers, was seen by both sides as a preparation for war. Conversely, the intentional lack of militarization signaled a continuity in peaceful relations. Near Sakonnet, what is now Little Compton, Rhode Island, then distant from the epicenter of conflict, Benjamin Church later reported to his son that he attempted to demonstrate to the Sakonnet band of Wampanoag Indians he meant to abstain from the conflict by showing them “he moved none of his goods from his house, that there might not be the least umbrage from such an action” against the Indians (Church 1827:26). Instead, he took the two men from the band who were guarding his house to a place where he would hide his valuables if a war should erupt. While Church's account is suspect—he quickly joined the colonial cause with fervor and became one of its most decorated, or notorious, soldiers—his account reveals that the erection of military defenses or the obvious lack of such activity served as a performative act, easily recognizable across culture and language, to signal the state of intercultural relations and impending military action. Notwithstanding the construction of several large scale fortifications across New England begun during the war, most towns continued to rely on dwelling houses to serve as military centers. In late July 1675, rumors spread regarding a gathering of Nipmuck Indians in Quaboag swamp, near Brookfield, Massachusetts. The Council of War dispatched an 40 expeditionary force to “get a clear demonstration of their affection” (A Brief and True Narration 1675:7). The unforeseen arrival of Philip's men at Quaboag on the same day as the English touched off a fight between colonial and Indian forces. Nursing open wounds, the militia retreated to Brookfield village where the men made preparations against a raid at the house and inn owned by Sgt. John Ayres located in the middle of the village. As one of the commanders, Capt. Thomas Wheeler (1676:4-5) later reported, Being got to the Town we speedily betook our selves to one of the largest and strongest houses therein, where we fortified our selves in the best manner we could in such straits of Time, and there resolved to keep Garrison, though we were but few, and meanly fitted to make Resistance against so many Enemies. The News of the Indians Treacherous dealing with us, and the loss of so many of our Company thereby, did so amaze the Inhabitants of the Town, that they being informed thereof by us presently left their houses, divers of them carrying very little away with them, they being afraid of the Indians sudden coming upon them: and so came to the house we were entered into, very meanly provided of Cloathing, or furnished with Provisions. A combined Nipmuck and Wampanoag raid on Brookfield commenced that day, August 2, 1675, and lasted until August 5, when English reinforcements arrived in the town and broke the siege. While the appropriation of dwelling houses was often expedient, it was also a part of formal military strategy decided by the colonial governing councils. When the war crossed into Massachusetts, the governing council conscripted soldiers from across the colony and garrisoned them in at least 15 towns during the course of the conflict (Zelner 2009). These soldiers both needed places to quarter and were required to build additional defensive works 41 to ensure their own survival and that of the villagers who they lived among. At Groton, Massachusetts, a large garrison remained quartered in the town for the duration of the winter of 1675-1676. However, the colony lacked the number of soldiers and quantities of munitions required to defend the large number of frontier towns. Thus, they assigned garrisons for short periods based on perceived need and closeness to Boston. Triage did not work; rather it further divided the colony's strained human and material resources. The town of Lancaster, which was located roughly equidistant between Boston and the Connecticut River Valley, fell when it was “remote from aid of others, and not being Gerisoned as it might” (Rowlandson 1682:A2). Even when soldiers were properly stationed, they could be called away leaving once defended villages subject to well-timed raids. In one settlement, “There was a fortified house...where the English... hoped to secure themselves. But at the time the Indians assaulted the place, many of the English were absent, and few left in the garrison but women and children” (Hubbard 1803:257). Colonists along the Northern frontiers fared worst of all. Refugees from the settlements along the Saco River sought refuge on Mohegan Island where they implored the Massachusetts to send a garrison for protection. Word returned “intimating nothing of any help like to come; besides, those that brought the letter told them it was in vain to expect any help from Boston” (Hubbard 1803:256-257). Upon receiving this missive, the settlement dispersed. The arrival and quartering of a garrison was a mixed blessing. When a garrison arrived, its commander acquired authority to defend the town and its people. When Capt. 42 Hutchinson arrived at Brookfield to treaty with the Quaboag band of Nipmuck Indians, for example, the three soldiers in the company from the town unsuccessfully protested against journeying into their swamp, “so strongly perswaded of their Freedome from any ill Intentions towards us, ...because the greatest part of those Indians belonged to David... who was taken to be great Friend to the English” (Wheeler 1676:2). The three Brookfield men died in the ensuing fight, while the rest of the company retreated to the Ayres house. A garrison might confer a degree of safety to a settlement, but the men it contained were also strangers in need of food and shelter. Moreover, in many cases, impressed men were sent as replacements for men from the town impressed into other militias. In the case of the Brookfield fight, John Ayres was then away in a different company, while the garrison consisted of men from Boston, Bellerica, Chelmsford, Concord, Sudbury (Wheeler 1676:4). In addition to men, garrisons sometimes included dogs capable—and encouraged—to kill their enemies. However, these were fickle creatures. Mary Rowlandson reported, “We had six stout Dogs belonging to our Garrison, but none of them would stir, though another time, if any Indian had come to the door, they were ready to fly upon him and tear him down” (Rowlandson 1682:3). In other instances, soldiers used dogs to torment captive Indians (Easton 1913:16). In some cases these various levels of dislike converged. In September 1675, Major Appleton marched to Hadley, Massachusetts with a rag-tag corps of boys unfit for the militia, French mercenaries, and privateers and their several dogs (Zelner 2009:184). This was hardly the corps of reinforcements the townspeople expected. 43 The houses appropriated for military service were often “prominent house[s]” (Hubbard 1803:95) owned by high-ranking officers, ministers, and public servants. Being owned by the most prominent men in town, they were surrounded by various outbuildings, from large barns to small store houses. When the war began, towns frequently chose between one and three fortified houses depending on the size of the town, the number of soldiers in the garrison, and the time for preparation. By the spring of 1676, many towns chose to defend increasing numbers of houses—Andover, Massachusetts designated 12 fortified houses in early 1676—suggesting greater dissent over whose house should be made a stronghold in the case of an Indian raid, and, conversely, whose house should be sacrificed for the mutual defense. When someone razed a house on the outskirts of Dedham, possibly to frame the Christian Indians living there, the loss was considered negligible because it was “a poor old house not worth ten shillings, that stood alone far distant from the dwelling- houses” (Gookin 1836:472). The chosen houses were frequently located in the center of the village, closest to the meeting house, which was usually the largest structure in town as well as the center for spiritual life,1 and also afforded soldiers greater surveillance of the surrounding buildings, but also the shortest distance for the villagers to retreat. In other cases, as on Block Island, military leaders preferred houses in a strategic location, such as near a harbor (Selleck 1912:40). Military strategists struggled with the proper plan of defense for less sparsely populated towns, such as Windsor, Connecticut, “being so scattered as it is, difficult to keep and mayntayn a military watch” (Trumbull 1852:380), where they 44 determined a strategy of ranging patrols. Some houses chosen as garrisons, such as the Ayres house in Brookfield and Woodcock house in Attleboro, had functioned as inns and taverns before the war. Permission to “keep ordinary” does not suggest a substantive difference between inns and other dwelling houses beyond their former role as gathering places. Rather, governing councils' repeated preference to quarter soldiers in inns over other private dwellings also suggests villagers' dissatisfaction with quartering militiamen from other towns and colonies, even if they were there to provide protection. When choosing among several houses deemed suitable for fortification, some attention was granted to their relative defensibility. However, in practice, few dwelling houses could withstand an extended assault by Indian combatants. As Increase Mather (1676:6) described the stand at Brookfield, the “settlers made choice of the Strongest House there, resolved to make a Garrison of it.” From these vague allusions to size and strength, the majority of fortified houses were probably timber-framed and clapboarded. New England folklore suggests these houses were either built entirely or “filled up” with brick to guard against attack, but little evidence supports this myth (Pumphrey 1910; Thompson 1904, Vol. 1:84). Despite the perceived strength of the houses designated to be fortified, their walls proved ineffective against musket-fire. Recounting the attack at Lancaster, Mary Rowlandson reported, “the Bullets seemed to fly like hail; and quickly they wounded one man among us, then another, and then a third” (Rowlandson 1682:3). Nonetheless, those within the house withstood the attack for two hours, which sounded “as if one had taken an handfull of stones 45 and threw them” at the wall (Rowlandson 1682:3). In the Ayres House at Brookfield, Thomas Wheeler (1676:5) similarly described the attackers, “sending in their Shot amongst us like haile through the walls” (italics in original). Indians' frequent use of fire to burn down entire villages, including fortified houses, whether filled or abandoned, suggests most, if not all, were constructed primarily of wood. Stone or brick may have been used in their construction, but these materials did not contribute to the defensibility of the house. In some cases, villagers constructed additional defensive works around their fortified house or houses. These projects most often consisted of a palisade wall: a line of sharpened tree trunks placed several feet in the ground and lashed together. When protected in this manner, a house was said to have “a good fortification” (Gookin 1836:517). The extent of these works depended on available labor, and the quality varied considerably. Sometime between March and June 1676, soldiers garrisoned in Hadley, Massachusetts constructed a “fence of palisadoes surrounding the town,” which was further defended by artillery. When a party of 700 Indians attempted to raid the town on June 12, 1676, “the soldiers or townsmen within, firing a piece of ordinance, so affrighted the barbarous savages, or a party of them against whom it was discharged, that although they had just before surprized and possessed a house… they instantly fled” (Hubbard 1803:201). When the village was attacked again, in September 1677, “a party of Indians... burnt some dwelling-houses and barns, that stood without the line, and wounded and killed about twelve persons, and carried away captive twenty English persons, most of them women and children” (Gookin 1836:520). By 46 contrast, the Rowlandson house at Lancaster fell so quickly in part because “The House stood upon the edg of a hill... and there being no defense about the House, only two Flankers at two opposite corners and one of them not finished” (Rowlandson 1682:3). The speed with which most English towns fell to Indian raids suggests palisade walls most often went uncompleted. Family Life under the Threat of Violence While many fortified houses eventually became sites of attack and defense during King Philip's War, during the majority of time soldiers quartered there and villagers took shelter among them, they were not sites of military activity. Rather, attacks by Indian groups often surprised the colonists who had exerted so much effort to protect themselves for such an event. The histories written about the war, which follow the military exploits of colonists and Indians across New England, offer the mistaken impression that life spent inside fortified houses consisted entirely of cowering against an Indian raid, while men shot back through windows. Synthesizing the snippets of descriptions about daily life at fortified houses from these sources reveals, by contrast, that life under the watchful eye of garrisoned soldiers was largely mundane and filled with normal routines. Even after an attack, the rhythms of family life resumed. After the siege of the the Ayres House in Brookfield, the villagers stayed on. “During the time these People kept themselves in that House, two Women were safely delivered of two Sons apiece, who in a Months time brought them all themselves on foot to 47 Boston, where they were plentifully relieved out of the Church Stock there” (Saltonstall 1833:21).2 Intimate family events, such as these, were rarely recorded by the histories emphasizing military exploits; the twins born at the Ayres house deserved mention because it was considered an auspicious sign of God's deliverance. Reconstructing social life in fortified houses, both in times of attack and leisure, requires assembling disparate clues and a degree of inference. Ultimately, documentary evidence provides only a rough portrait of daily routines, but suggests congregating in a fortified house was unpleasant and to be avoided except under dire circumstances. The presence of the garrison at the fortified house was not only to protect the site for future military service and the local population, but also to secure peoples' goods against the threat of Indian raids, which could result in the destruction of an entire village by fire over a single day. During raids, colonists sometimes observed Indians “pilfering sum houses that the English had left” (Easton 1913:12). After one raid, colonists watched as the Indians “spent the residue of the day in removing the corn and house-hold stuff, in which five families were impoverished... Here also they took some cattle” (Hubbard 1803:169). That night, as the colonists starved, “the enemy lodged in the town, some of them in the garrison they had surprized, but the body of them in an adjacent valley, where they made themselves merry after their savage manner” (Hubbard 1803:169). As the war progressed, the Connecticut governing council realized that Indian forces could easily scavenge abandoned houses unmolested, while entire towns gathered together, and took legal measures to prevent 48 unwittingly supplying the enemy. The Councill considering the present state of affayres and that it may be expected that the enemie may make some assault upon the plantations to ravage for provisions, have thought meet to order and command that those that continue... doe forthwith repayre into good and sufficient garrisons, in such manner for numbers as that in an ordinary course of God's Providence they may be able to defend themselves; and that their graine of all sorts be brought into the townes or secured in som garrison on that side; and that they kill and secure all their swine that are fitt to be killed; and that they keep no armes nor ammunition but in garrison houses; except what they carry about with them; and that they keep and mayntayne good and sufficient watches by night and wardes by day, for their owne defense and securety, or elce send scouts to range the woods by day, to discover the approach of the enemie” (Trumbull 1852:390). In the most extreme circumstances, colonial governments demanded individual settlements be abandoned. When the Connecticut governing council believed it could not protect the town of Simsbury from “the insolencies of the heathen” it ordered the removal of the townspeople and their “estate” to a neighboring town (Trumbull 1852:412). Even as the presence of soldiers appeared to represent security for one's belongings, however, the large and shifting number of people at fortified houses also encouraged theft (Leach 1958:134). Many colonists were unsure whether their most cherished belongings were safer in the fortified house, among their peers, or in their own houses. As a case in point, Minister Peletiah Glover of Springfield had sent his “brave library” to be protected by the garrison when the war spread to the Connecticut River Valley. However, shortly before Indians raided the town and burned most of the houses there, “as if the danger had been over with them, the said minister, a great student, and an helluo librorum, being impatient for 49 want of his books, brought them back to his great sorrow, fit for a bonfire for the proud insulting enemy” (Hubbard 1803:118). Indians also used colonists' property in their assault on the colonists sheltering at the fortified house. At Brookfield, for example, Indians used linens removed from dwelling houses around town to make fire arrows, which they fired down on on the fortified house. For Indians well-acquainted with English textiles in trade and books in religious service, their decision to light these goods on fire and, in the case of linens, return them to their owners, should also be interpreted as a purposeful symbolic act of repudiation against the English colonists. While certain goods might remain in a fortified house as a preventative measure, colonists were not expected to remain in these houses for the duration of the war—nor was there enough room to do so. Based on the enumeration of casualties in printed sources, which were given to exaggeration, the number of people who could be expected to take shelter in a single fortified house can be partially reconstructed. This number could vary dramatically. On the more distant frontiers of Maine, where soldiers were less frequently dispatched, the number of people killed was generally smaller. At the Wakefield house in Maine, which did not have a garrison, six individuals died (Hubbard 1803:240). In the attack at Lancaster Rowlandson remembered 37 people in the fortified house from which she was taken captive, only one of whom escaped either death or “a bitter captivity” (Rowlandson 1682:4). At the high end of the range, in Ayres house in Brookfield, 76 individuals sheltered together (26 men and 50 women and children), plus an additional 48 reinforcements, for a 50 total of 124 persons (Wheeler 1676:4-5).3 Families typically sheltered together; in the case of the Wakefield family, a father, his wife, his daughter-in-law, and her three children died (one more was taken captive). In Rowlandson's case, she sheltered in her husband's house—he was then gone to Boston seeking assistance—along with her children, elder sister, brother-in- law and two nephews. The others in the house were presumably other kinsmen, neighbors, and soldiers. Even more removed, all of the 15 or 16 households in Brookfield gathered in the Ayres house along with two militias comprised of men primarily from other towns. Thus, when individuals congregated in a single house or between several houses not only packed together in close-quarters, but also into new social groups of disparate relationship to each other. As the largest group of individuals sheltering in fortified houses, the success or failure of this system of defense had its greater impact women and children. The conscription of men from each English village, in addition to volunteers from these towns, meant the majority of men were dispersed in armies or other towns when attacks took place, to be defended by men from elsewhere. Colonial governments attempted to manage raising an army while defending villages through triage. In Norwich Connecticut, colonists implored the governing council “to affoard them some guard whilst the army are in the field, they bordering upon the enemie and having so many in the field,” to which the governor acquiesced by sending 26 men conscripted from across the colony (Trumbull 1852:389). When attacks began in central Massachusetts, Hubbard (1803:160) recalled, “seventeen 51 [soldiers] of Bridgewater, ordered …to Metapoiset… to strengthen the garrison at one Bourn’s house, wherein were seventy persons, amongst whom were only found sixteen men.” In some cases, quartering soldiers posed a physical threat to women as a consequence of the presence of guns and munitions. One narrative reports, the lieutenant's widow, being at Mr. Wilson's, the minister's house, that stood near the main guard, being upon a bed in a chamber, divers soldiers and commanders being in the room underneath, Capt. Jacob having a gun in his hand half ben, with the muzzle upward towards the chamber, he being taking his leave to be gone to his quarters, by some accident the gun fired through, and shot floor, mat, and through and through the body of the lieutenant's widow” (Gookin 1836:494). In other cases, men refused to abandon their wives and children to be defended by others perceiving the their ineffectiveness. For instance, Benjamin Church removed his wife and firstborn child from a fortified house in Plymouth to Portsmouth before her lying-in period finished, against the wishes of her parents, “who much persuaded that she might be left at Mr. Clark's garrison, (which they supposed to be a mighty safe place) or at least that she might be there, until her soon expected lying in was over” (Church 1827:72). Within 24 hours of arriving on Aquidneck Island, Indians attacked and burned Clark's house during the so-called Eel River Massacre (Church 1827:73). When an Indian raid commenced, military commanders expected colonists to retreat to the fortified house and wait out the attack. Yet, military intelligence was difficult to ascertain on the colonial frontiers, and individual villages were most often left to tend to their own security. In some cases, military leaders attempted to reconnoiter with neighboring 52 settlements to determine if an attack was immanent. A more daring leader might attempt to gather intelligence himself. [T]he Lieutenant of the town [Springfield], Cooper by name, …with another would venture to ride up to the [Indian] fort, to see whether things were so or not. The fort was about a mile from the town; --when he came within a little thereof, he met those bloody and deceitful monsters… they presently fired upon him, …and shot him in several places through the body, yet being a man of stout courage he kept his horse, till he recovered the next garrison house, his companion they shot dead upon the place; by this means giving a sad alarm to the town of their intended mischiefs, which was instantly fired in all places where there were no garrisons (Hubbard 1803:110). While the beat of a drum was intended to signal an immanent raid (Trumbull 1852:380), in many cases, warning was given by musket-fire once an attack was already underway. When Indians attacked houses along Maine’s Saco River in September 1676, “Major Phillip’s garrison saw Capt. Bonithon’s house on fire, which by the good Providence of God was to them as the firing of a beacon… for within half an hour after they were upon them” (Hubbard 1803:241). While colonists sheltered in their town’s fortified house or houses, they were often unaware whether the raiding party had passed on or was still in the vicinity waiting for them to emerge. During a lull in a different fight in western Massachusets, “a few of those barbarous wretches killed a poor man belonging to Springfield, as he was going to his house to look after his corn, …and after they had killed the man, they burnt down his house” (Hubbard 1803:118). In another instance, Indian combatants who had raided the village, but not attacked its fortified houses, “placed themselves in several parts of the town” for the night, where they were undiscovered until colonists emerged the next day (Hubbard 53 1803:158). The dearth of reliable military intelligence demanded soldiers to maintain a consistent watch against a surprise raid, but these designs were often frustrated by too few soldiers and the lethargy of a long conflict. Conscripted soldiers bore primary responsibility for the watch. The garrison dispatched to Groton, Massachusetts during the winter of 1675- 1676, for example, maintained “about thirty men that were upon the watch at the corps du garde, near the meeting-house” (Gookin 1836:493). In March 1676, the governing council of Connecticut ordered an effective watch, beginning, “about an hower at least before day, in each day, …until sunn be half an hower high in the morning, ...and then two scouts in each end of every town are to be sent forth on horseback, to scout the woods” (Trumbull 1852:417). Given the overwhelming scarcity of forced labor, however, the task of maintaining a watch fell on non-combatants. When a group of refugees from settlements along the Maine coast attempted to establish a stronghold on Monhegan Island, but only three “guards” numbered among them, 25 non-combatants watched every night for two weeks. (Hubbard 1803:256). An alert watch in a house could lead to its successful defense. On the Saco River in September 1675, an attack was stopped “when a sentinel placed in the chamber gave notice that he saw an Indian by the fence side near a corn field” (Hubbard 1803:241). Nonetheless, watches rarely worked as designed often because of the the unrelenting boredom. While sheltering at the home of Hezekiah Willet, located outside of Swanzey, colonists “used 54 frequently to keep a sentinel on the top of their house from a watch-house built thereon, whence they could discover any Indians before they came near the house” (Hubbard 1803:197-198). For much of the war, this sentry system appears to have worked at preventing those from venturing outside when there were Indians nearby. Over time, the routine became lax, however. On July 1, 1676, “that necessary piece of circumspection was omitted that day” (Hubbard 1803:198). Not fifteen minutes after Willet left his door, and “within sight of his house, he was shot at by three of them [Indians] at once, from every one of whom he received a mortal wound; they after their barbarous manner cut off his head, and carried it away” (Hubbard 1803:198). Connecticut attempted to prevent similar disasters by declaring, “those that neglect the watch...shall pay a fine of five shillings or ride the wooden horss a quarter of an hower” (Trumbull 1852:390). The presence of a watch undoubtedly afforded a sense of security for those inside the house, but it was more show than effective defense. Despite the various levels of security instituted at fortified houses, colonists frequently eschewed their protection to remain in their own quarters, and were frequently caught outside when attacks eventually occurred. Given the particular strains placed on women and children by the fortified house system, the sudden and violent nature of Indian raids on colonial villages led many into acts of bravery, which were recounted in military dispatches from the frontiers and then recast by the war's historians. When Indians raided Newechewannic, or Salmon Falls on the Saco River in Maine, they first attacked the “upper” 55 house “wherein were 15 persons, yet all women and children” (Hubbard 1803:243). As the assault commenced, “a young maid of about 18 years age… who being endured with great courage, shut too the door and refused them entrance until the others within had escaped to the next house which was better fortified” (Hubbard 1803:243). As Hubbard (1803:243) recounts, the young heroes kept the door shut against them so long that they chopped it to pieces with their hatchets, and on gaining entrance they knocked her down and left her for dead, they then went to the other house, in their way meeting two children, one of which they killed and carried away the other captive. The poor maid that had ventured her life to save many others, was by a strange providence enabled to recover so much strength after they were gone, as to repair to the next garrison, where she was soon after healed of her wounds, and restored to perfect health again. While significant losses were prevented by the young heroine, the success was short lived, and further measures were not taken to build a better signaling system. Facing supply shortages and destruction all around, colonial leaders had difficulty maintaining order within garrison houses. Those who would rather leave and fend for themselves, often desiring to abandon frontier settlements for towns, Hubbard (1803:256) described as having a “mutinous disposition.” On Maine's Monhegan Island, a party consisting of, “strangers, coasters, and such as came from the main... ready to be gone upon every occasion” was only held together by “an embargo for one week” (Hubbard 1803:256). Much to the soldiers' chagrin, colonists often vacated the fortified house to go in search of food or back to their own houses. Near Springfield, when one militia “drew near to their garrison, they met with a company of carts, going to fetch corn from a house deserted near 56 by, about a quarter mile off ” (Hubbard 1803:161). The colonists would not be dissuaded by notice of Indians nearby and “as soon as they came to the barn where was the corn; these 6… were slain in that quarrel. The soldiers at the garrison hearing the guns, made what hast they could to the place, but most of them in that interim gone to look their horses, they could not come to the relief of their friends” (Hubbard 1803:161). On another occasion, “divers of the people, not suspecting any such matter… were attending their occasions, some foddering their cattle, some milking their cows” (Hubbard 1803:168). Yet, disorder not only appeared among the people under the protection of the militia, but also among the militiamen, particularly as planting season approached. In April 1676, the minister of Plymouth wrote, “I am exceedingly afflicted to think, that wee should so reele and stagger in our counsels as drunken men, and that soe pretious a people as Rehoboth should be soe forsaken by us, for our own selfish interests” (Bliss 1836:101). Spring was planting time and a failure to return to one's own fields would ensure later starvation, if the Indians did not return. If the social order imposed within fortified houses was disliked by European colonists, then it probably imposed even greater hardship on servants—whether indentured Europeans or enslaved Africans or Natives—who also found shelter in garrison houses. Colonial documents rarely treat the subject of African slaves and the documents written about King Philip's War are no exception. However, they do indicate that African slaves died during the war. One example comes from the attack on the house owned by Hezekiah Willet where the Indians captured “a negro belonging to the same family” and slaughtered 20 cattle 57 (Hubbard 1803:198). As Puritans looked to explain the war as evidence of God's punishing their fall, their ministers found explanation in servants' intractability. Two persons were killed at Wells [Maine] in the beginning of winter, one of them was a servant to Mr. William Symonds (one of the principal men in the town aforesaid) the gentleman himself with his family were removed to a garrison house in the middle of the town. His servant going early in the morning to look after some business there, tarried longer than was needful, to provide something for himself, the Indians invited themselves to breakfast with him, making the poor fellow pay the shot, when they had done, with the loss of his life (Hubbard 1803:246). Whether the servant killed was Native, African, or European is uncertain. Nevertheless, the servant's death as he or she attended to his or her own business, whether searching for food or checking on kinsmen, manifests the status differences among those sheltering within fortified houses. In this instance, Hubbard suggests the servant's death is the result of his or her failure to follow his or her master's instructions—i.e., putting personal satisfaction before the collective security. In the most extreme cases, some colonists flatly refused to abandon their houses and seek protection among others. In Maine, where Hubbard wrote, “some are ready to think that the English did imprudently begin the quarrel… [but] the English can be blamed for nothing but their negligence and security” (Hubbard 1803:239). As a case in point, Hubbard (1803:240) presented the murder of Mr. Wakefield on September 9, 1675, who lived on the Saco river with his wife, son, pregnant daughter-in-law, and three grand-children. This Wakely lived so far from his neighbours, or else was encompassed with creeks or rivers that no relief could presently be sent to him; however, …the next day… a file 58 of men, repaired to the place where the house stood, to see what was the reason of the fire they discerned the day before, where they found the house burned to ashes, the bodies of the old man and his wife half consumed with fire, the young woman killed, and three of the grand-children having their brains beat out, and their bodies laid under some oaken plank not far from the house. A fourth grandchild, his son’s daughter, “was said to have been carried to Narraganset…. but was returned back in a few months after” (Hubbard 1803:240). Following this attack, several others on outlying houses with limited defenses soon followed, which “induced” those living nearby to “retire over the river” to live with the nearby garrison (Hubbard 1803:241). People like Hubbard saw such a retreat as the only responsible solution. Separating Friendly from Enemy Indians Even as soldiers and non-combatants spent time and energy adding defensive works to former dwelling houses in anticipation of conflict, the success or failure of the house's defense depended on advance warning of a raid. Even when a house was extensively defended behind a palisade and guarded by a garrison, it remained vulnerable to a surprise attack. During King Philip's War, Arowsick Island, located in the mouth of the Sagadahoc River in southern Maine, was owned jointly by two military officers, Capt. Lake and Maj. Clarke. They built a fort on the island, complete with port holes and a gate, which surrounded the central house owned by Capt. Lake. The fortification was further defended by a group of soldiers from villages nearby under the command of Capt. Davis. On August 14, 1676, a 59 party of Indians “hid under the walls of the fort, and behind a great rock near adjoining, till the sentinel was gone off from his place (who went off it seems sooner than he should, considering the danger.” While some Indians followed the sentinel through the gate, others shot soldiers within the fort by firing through the port holes, thereby gaining entrance to the fort. Hearing the distant sound of guns, Capt. Lake, Capt. Davis, and two foot soldiers fled through the back entrance of the house and fort to the river. They discovered a canoe on the bank and paddled away, but another canoe of Indians followed and shot Capt. Lake. The four soldiers eventually outpaced the Indians and rounded the southern tip of the Island and landed safely at another English outpost. Hubbard (1803:254) eulogized, “Poor Capt. Lake, who a few hours before slept quietly in his mansion house, surrounded with a strong fortification, defended with many soldiers, is now forced to fly away with none to attend him.” A near constant state of fear among the colonists raised alarms whenever Indians came nearby. At one long-established trading house along Maine's Kennebec River, owned by “one Mr. Hammond, an ancient inhabitant, and trader with the Indians,” the arrival of a group of Indians in August 1676 caused “his daughter, or a maid that was servant in the house” to flee outside. In recounting the tale, Hubbard was unfamiliar with the details: either she was “afraid of the natives, or else from something she observed in their countenance or carriage, manifested so much fear.” Immediately, the Indians “ran after her, and brought her into the house, telling her (although they could not persuade her so to believe) that there was 60 no reason to be afraid of them.” However, as more Indians made their way to the house, she grew more afraid than before, being now more strongly persuaded that they came on purpose to kill or surprize the family, whereupon she suddenly made an escape out the house, and presently passed into a field of Indian corn, whereby she might the better avoid the danger of any pursuer, and so ran across over the land that night, ten or twelve miles, to give them notice that lived at Sheepscot river; it is said that after she got out, she heard a noise in the house as if they were fighting or scuffling within doors; but she did not count it wisdom to go back and see what the matter was” ((Hubbard 1803:251-252). The colonists living at Sheepscot fled immediately, leaving behind their cattle, but, at the time of Hubbard's writing, the fate of the 16 people living at the trading house was unknown. Rumors spread they were killed, stripped, and deposited along the bank of the river. While the Indians attacked the colonists systematically, they did not do so indiscriminately. The leader of the raiders was Monoco, called One-eyed John by the English, who had long lived among the colonists at Groton. 4 When colonists abandoned two of their fortified houses, he proceeded to remove supplies from it. The following night, [he] did very familiarly in appearance, call out to Capt. Parker, that was lodged in another garrison house, and entertained a great deal of discourse with him, whom he called his old neighbor; dilating upon the cause of the war, and putting an end to it by a friendly peace; yet oft mixing bitter sarcasms, with several blasphemous scoffs and taunts, at their praying and worshipping God in the meeting-house, which he deridingly said he had burnt. Among other things which he boastingly uttered that night, he said… that he now would burn the town of Groton, and then would next burn Chelmsford, Concord, Watertown, Cambridge, Charlestown, Roxbury, Boston (Hubbard 1803:170-171). 61 While the final assault on fortified houses often ended with the killing or capture of many hiding inside, other cases demonstrate that colonists and Indians who had formerly lived together amicably were able to reach peaceful terms of surrender. On October 12, 1676, a group of approximately 200 Indians gathered to attack the fortified house at Wells, Maine, located on Black Point, where all the inhabitants had taken shelter after several dwelling houses were raided a few days prior. The leader of the Indians was a man named Mugg, who had lived with various colonial families since childhood. Hubbard (1803:255) reports, “at this time [he] shewed more courtesy to the English, than according to former outrages could be expected from any of those barbarous miscreants and was willing to make offer of a treaty to Mr. Josselin, chief of the garrison.” The terms of the treaty were “liberty for all that were there... with their goods upon the surrender of the place, which was accordingly done.” After attempting to resettle at several more southerly locations along the Maine coastline, the colonists eventually dispersed among Piscataqua, Boston, and Salem. For Native and European Americans who had lived among each other, the attack and defense of fortified houses offered opportunity for the expression of long-simmering tensions. Some Indians, for instance, mocked the Puritans' religious practices, in which they had formerly partaken. At Brookfield, some of attackers “went to the Towns meeting house which was within twenty Rods [330 feet] of the house in which we were who mocked saying, Come and pray, & sign psalms, & in Contempt made an hideous noise somewhat resembling singing.” (Wheeler 1676:7). Those attacking and defending fortified houses also 62 engaged in more explicit forms of intimidation, often by placing body parts hacked from corpses on poles some distance from the fortified house, whether to warn those inside of their fate or those beyond its walls of the dangers should they mount an attack. As Monoco's band departed Groton, for example, they fired the remaining houses and stripped “the body of him whom they had slain in the first onset, and then cutting off his head, fixed it upon a pole, looking toward his land” (Hubbard 1803:170). The Indians also disinterred the corpse of a man killed a week prior, stripped off his winding sheet, cut off his head and leg, and set these parts on poles. “An infant which they found dead, in the house first surprised, they cut in pieces which afterwards they cast to the swine” (Hubbard 1803, 170). After the Battle of Bloody Brook, too, Indians stripped the bodies of the dead and scalped colonists. As colonists sheltered at the garrison at Deerfield the next day, Indians began “hanging up the garments of the English in sight of the soldiers, yet on the other side of the river” (Hubbard 1803:107). Colonists took the body parts of their neighbors down and replaced them with those from newly dead Indians. When the war began, some non-combatant Indians caught in the midst of the burgeoning conflict saw garrison houses—at the active encouragement of colonial soldiers— as places where they could surrender without risking harm. At Dartmouth (Ponaganset), in Plymouth Colony, in late June 1675, Metacom's men “burnt all their houses but one, ...and slew several persons” (A Brief and True Narration 1675:5). The survivors fended for themselves in the remnant garrison house until late July 1675. When the reinforcements 63 arrived at “Russell's garrison at Ponaganset, they met with a number of the enemy, that had surrended themselves prisoners on terms promised by Captain Eels of the garrison.” Despite these promises, “they were carried away to Plymouth, there sold, and transported out of the country, being about eight score persons” (Church 1827:50-52). A second account written from Porstmouth, Rhode Island describes their surrender somewhat differently: “about a 150 indians Came in to a Plimoth gareson volentarely. Plimoth authority sould all for slafes (but about six of them) to be Caried out of the Cuntry” (Easton 1913:13). It also suggests this fortified house was used to torture at least one man who had surrendered. “[T]he English army Cote an old indian and tormented him. he was wee knone to have bine a long time a veri decreped and haremless indian of the queens [i.e., a Narragansett]” (Easton 1913:14). While fortified houses were considered places of surrender, they were unfitting for keeping prisoners. At Dartmouth, the captive Indians were kept on an island nearby before being shipped away as slaves (Henchman 1883). As the war continued, surrender to garrison houses became increasingly futile. After surrendering, colonists frequently attacked, abused, enslaved, or executed their new captives. As the spring of 1676 approached, a group of 58 Christian Indians from Nashobah, 12 men and 46 women and children, abandoned their homes to seek protection among the English at Concord. Bringing with them a six-month supply of corn, the Massachusetts Governing Council created a committee of selectmen from the town to determine their disposition. The committee granted near ownership of the Indians to John Hoare, who built a “work-house” 64 near his own dwelling place in the center of town. “This house was made, not only to secure those Indians under lock and key by night, but to employ them and set them to work by day” (Gookin 1836:495). Yet, other inhabitants disliked the arrangement, whether nervous at the thought of Indians among them or jealous at Hoare's suddenly large corps of slaves. Several from the town contacted Captain Mosely, a military officer reputed for his dislike and distrust of Praying Indians, who was then stationed nearby, to intervene and remove “the heathen” to Boston. Despite Hoare's protestations, Mosely broke open the door and his men “plundered...their shirts, shoes, dishes, and other things” (Gookin 1836:496) before marching them to Charlestown, to be shipped to Deer Island. Mosely's arrest of the slaves met with disapproval among the Governing Council at Boston, but without rebuke, suggesting his actions had strong popular support, if not the support of the law. Praying Indians at Marlboro met with a similar fate. In Connecticut towns where Indian bands pledged loyalty to the colonial government, the governing council ordered the constable to “take accot of the Indian men, women and children... and give order that part of the watch keep constantly there eye upon them... that they see none do them wroung in word or action” (Trumbull 1852:376). Some colonists stole valuables from the Indians among them, for which they were prosecuted if discovered, as in the case of Joseph Hadsdell, who was convicted of stealing four pounds of wampum (Trumbull 1852:485). Yet, this was for the benefit of the English rather than the Indians, who were ordered “that none be abroad after sun sett, andnone be absent but by leave and with a ticket... or some English with them” 65 (Trumbull 1852:376). The increasing violence of the war placed Indians who attempted to remain neutral or side with the colonists in an impossible position between opposing forces. The war placed particular strain on the Christian or “Praying” Indians in central Massachusetts. Nipmuck country then contained seven established or “old” Christian or Praying Indian villages. 5 When war erupted in Plymouth, the Governing Council of Massachusetts Bay briefly considered building a defensive wall surrounding these villages to demarcate the colonial frontier, but realized such an undertaking was unfeasible. Instead, the government incorporated the Praying Indians in these towns into a “living wall” made up of Indian and English expeditionary forces located in each praying town. 6 The Council also rejected this idea. As the Praying Towns, like the English towns nearby, became places of violence, most Christian Indians fended for themselves. The experiences of these Praying Indians were recorded by Daniel Gookin, superintendent of the Praying Indians, who recognized early on their impossible position during the war and sought to include mention of their losses in the historical record produced in its aftermath. He reported, “most of the praying towns... had put themselves into a posture of defense, and had made forts for their security against the common enemy” (Gookin 1836:435). They built one fort on Indian land in Marlborough “near the centre of the English town, not far from the... Meeting-House” (Gookin 1836:443). From this position, the Nipmuck scouted the woods on behalf of the English, returning with other Indians suspected of traveling to reinforce Philip's men. 7 Thus, the 66 creation of fortified houses during King Philip's War should not be interpreted as solely an English reaction, but also one that encompassed Indian peoples. Other Indians actively participated in the war as combatants alongside English soldiers as spies, scouts, guides, messengers, interpreters, or auxiliaries. Like their colonial counterparts they, too, used garrison houses as places of attack and defense. At the outbreak of the war, officers quickly learned their tactics toward the conduct of a European-style military engagement would be useless against Indians who hid in the springtime bush and knew the landscape far better than they. Fearing a quick defeat without the aid of Indians, “The Council [of Massachusetts]... judged it very necessary to arm and send forth some of the praying Indians to assist our forces, to try to deal the better with the enemy in their own ways and methods” (Gookin 1836:441). Similar to the impressing of English colonists, they raised 52 scouts—one of every three men—for the combined Massachusetts Bay-Plymouth army at Mount Hope in July 1675 (Gookin 1836:442-443). When the army drove the Wampanoag combatants into Nipmuck country, these Christian Indians proved invaluable at providing intelligence in their homeland, beginning with service for the English during the inauspicious during the defense of the Ayres house at Brookfield in August 1677. During the winter of 1675-1676, Mohegan Indians were invaluable to the English army from Connecticut in the campaign against the Narragansett Indians, both accompanying and sheltering among them. Even in the 17th century, however, some English colonists who empathized for the Christian Indians noticed Indian soldiers were written out of official 67 “after action” reports, despite oral reports from English soldiers stating their skill and courage in the conflict (see Gookin 1836). Unsurprisingly, then, Indian soldiers are not mentioned as occupants of fortified houses while circumstantial evidence frequently places them there. Despite their service for the English, Indian volunteers frequently faced suspicion and abuse at the hands of other soldiers and their officers. Indeed, those who fought alongside English soldiers often had no choice, and while they did, their families often perished whether from exposure or hunger on Deer Island or murdered by marauding English or Indians (see Gookin 1836). By the spring of 1676, Indians had become wary of sheltering within fortified houses among the English. As one military officer dispatched, “[t]he poor Indians, our pilots, as soon as they arrived at Marlborough, were much abused by the townsmen, insomuch that they were unwilling to go into any house” (Gookin 1836:506). Yet, as military leaders grew to worry they could not defeat Philip's without Indian assistance, they impressed greater numbers of Christian Nipmuck to fight the Wampanoag. In April 1676, the Governing Council of Massachusetts released 40 Christian Indians from Deer Island, to settle a garrison near the great fishing-places, where it was expected the enemy would come at this season to get fish for their necessary food; and from this fort to keep their scouts abroad daily, to seize the enemy; and if they should be overpowered by greater numbers their garrison and fort was for their retreat, until assistance might be sent them (Gookin 1836:510). The band was never dispatched, however, because their departure coincided with Philip's raid on Sudbury, and it was redirected there. Even after Philip's death—shot, in the end, by a 68 Wampanoag Indian—Nipmuck Indians continued to serve against the remaining adversaries. During the summer of 1677, as the war continued on in Maine, Christian Indians “were sent to keep garrison in the east parts, as Cocheco, York, Wells, and Black Point; others were sent with a small army to Black Point” (Gookin 1836:519). This statement suggests in the latter days of King Philip's War, when few men from Massachusetts would commit to military intervention in Maine, Indian forces comprised the bulk of the colonial military force. Conclusion Historical narratives written during and after King Philip's War manifest the importance of dwelling houses as places of attack, defense, and counter-attack. The use of dwelling houses as places of military engagement was not entirely new—they had been used during the Pequot War (1636-1637), for instance—but the scope of King Philip's War, a war made largely in the colonial home, permanently transformed the idea of the dwelling house. If the house had been primarily the locus of domestic life, then the war introduced the belief that it would also become a place of congregation and defense when circumstances required. In this context, the garrison house, a hybrid category of military and domestic architecture was born. This term became ubiquitous in New England writing after the war began, and has remained a feature of histories ever since. While these were often the largest and most centrally located houses in their respective communities, they were distinct only through their designation as gathering places in times of war. Their advent reflected the consolidation 69 of a strategy of garrisoning soldiers in dwellings. However, its use also discloses a changed way in which colonists along the New England frontiers created a new relationship with Native peoples. 70 Notes to Chapter 2 1 In some cases, meeting houses rather than dwelling houses were fortified for communal defense, but more often than not, colonists appear to have rejected their use in military service. 2 Some historians have interpreted this passage to mean two pairs of twins were delivered during the siege on the Ayers house (Ellis and Morris 1906:94; Schultz and Tougias 1999). The language used is vague, however, this paragraph is set apart from the description of the assault on Quaboag, suggesting it may have come from a different source before being typeset. Moreover, the delivery of two pairs of twins on the same day under duress is unlikely. In Boston, the arrival of these boys would have been heralded as providential, whether or not they were born under siege, although such a story could have circulated quickly. 3 Saltonstall (1833:20) who was not an eyewitness to the attack but published an account of the war contemporary with Wheeler's (1676) own version writes 80 people were there. Wheeler's number is probably more accurate. 4 Gookin (1836:459) reports John Monoco lived near Lancaster before the war. He was also a “captain” among Philip's men and the lead architect of the raid on Lancaster. 5 These seven villages were Wamesit (Chelmsford), Nashobah (Littleton), Okkokonimesit (Marlborough), Hassannamesit (Grafton), Makunkokoag (Hopkinton), Natick, and 71 Punkapog (or Pakomit, Stoughton) (Gookin 1836:434-435). 6 Gookin (1836:435) reported, “it was suggested and proposed to the authority of the country, that some English men, about one third part, might have been joined with those Christian Indians in each fort. 7 Before King Philip's War reached Marlborough, the Christian Indians there performed a scouting mission during which they arrested seven Indians from the Narragansett, Pequot, and an unspecified Long Island tribe. These men had been employed, whether as slaves or as paid laborers, for Jonathan Tyng at Barnstable, Massachusetts. From Marlborough, these captives were sent to Cambridge where magistrates examined them and heard their claims. The Indians reported asking for leave to return home from their “master,” which was denied, and so “marched secretly through the woods.” All of the captives were eventually released, but their presence in the wilderness gave rise to rumors among the English that the friendly and neutral tribes would eventually turn on the English. Equally possible is the Indians' assertion that they were attempting to protect their kin from an impending war. For a description, see Gookin (1836:440-441). 72 CHAPTER 3 A GARRISONED HOMELAND Introduction Garrison houses from King Philip's War were not only central to colonial settlements, but also were located on Native homelands populated for thousands of years prior to European colonization. Archaeologists are increasingly cognizant of the close, if not inextricable relationship between “prehistoric” and “historic” periods in North America (e.g., Arkush 2011; Lightfoot 1995; Rubertone 2012; Sassaman 2010). When seen from this “big- picture” perspective (Pauketat 2012:3), long-term patterns of Native sedentism and subsistence—that is, settlement patterns—are essential to interpreting Native responses to colonialism after ca. 1600 AD (see, e.g., Byrne 2003; Coutts 1976, 1985; Hall 1993; Parsons 1972; cf. Lewis 1984). As Handsman (2008:171) articulates, Native homelands are “ancestral... traditions fixed to the land by the visible signs of everyday life.” King Philip's War was in many ways a war about homelands: the physical landscape and peoples' deep historical connections to it. A homelands approach is Native-centered; it attempts to write critical or “counter-histories” of colonized regions through rigorous historical and archaeological research that illuminates Native perspectives of persistence and resistance overlooked or denied by colonialist accounts (e.g., Feder 1994; Handsman 2008; Handsman 73 and Richmond 1995; Leveillee et al. 2006; McBride 1994; Richter 2001; Rubertone 1989, 1994, 2001, 2008; H. Scott 2009). This chapter locates garrison houses in a specific Native homeland: Narragansett Country, the ancestral homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe in what is now Rhode Island. First, it delineates Narragansett Country as a cultural region—a geographical territory and a source of ethnic identity—from deep antiquity through the period of colonization. Second, it presents the history of King Philip's War in Narragansett Country to establish the ethnohistoric context of warfare across the homeland. Third, it identifies the garrison houses used as places of aggregation during the conflict. Finally, it investigates a case study, the raid on the Jireh Bull house in December 1675, as the culmination of a series of disagreements between colonists and Narragansett Indians over a particular homeland territory. When seen from the homeland perspective, garrison houses were located among sites of longstanding cultural significance to Narragansett peoples: seasonally occupied villages, resource procurement areas, and ceremonial places, among other sites of cultural importance. Close geographical proximity demanded repetitive social interaction which, in some cases, presaged the violent engagements of King Philip's War. I argue that raids on garrison houses during King Philip's War constituted particular acts of place-making tied to longstanding settlement patterns and resistance to more recent colonial aggression. “The Narragansett Country” 74 Narragansett Country extends westward from Narragansett Bay to the Pawcatuck River, which represents the contemporary boundary between the states of Rhode Island and Connecticut. Narragansett Country refers, in its broadest sense, to the Native homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe, a place as well as a source of identity that separated them from the neighboring Pequot, Nipmuck, and Wampanoag tribes. Today, the territory encompasses all of Rhode Island running west from Narragansett Bay, a territory representing the entire state except for towns located on islands within Narragansett Bay and along its eastern shore. Narragansett Country is sometimes used to describe as much smaller portion of Rhode Island comprising only Washington County, the so-called “South County,” roughly the southeastern corner of the mainland portion of the state (e.g., Fitts 1998). The more inclusive definition I deploy here is more congruent with colonial understanding of Narragansett Country and the perspective voiced by contemporary Narragansett Indians. Nonetheless, these fixed, physical boundaries of Narragansett Country were an historical construction of the 17th century created through the efforts of the New England colonies to claim as much territory as possible from its rightful owners under English common law, which colonial governors viewed as Narragansett sachems. Thus, the boundaries reflect general ethnic difference between New England tribes, but are historically contingent and culturally specific; they were highly contested across Native and colonial New England through the 18th century. Archaeological evidence indicates human populations have lived across this landscape 75 Figure 3.1: Archaeological resources in Rhode Island This map shows all of the known archaeological sites with known geographical coordinates from the Rhode Island Site Files (data courtesy of Charlotte Taylor). 76 for at least 12,000 years (Figure 3.1; Bernstein 1993; Robinson 1994; Simmons 1986; Smith et al. 2012). However, archaeological deposits older than ca. 9,000 BP (7,000 BC) are rare probably because a rise in sea level has inundated older sites (Robinson and Taylor 2000). Archaeologists have identified more than 2,500 sites in Rhode Island according to the official record maintained by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission. While the known archaeological record represents only a miniscule portion of actual cultural deposits, their geographical distribution represent, albeit crudely, human settlement patterns across this landscape. With fecund natural resources and access to waterways, the western coastline of Narragansett Bay and the southern coastline of Long Island Sound were the most densely settled in Narragansett Country prior to European colonization. By the Late Woodland period (ca. 1,000-1500 AD), Native Americans across southern New England, including the Narragansett, lived in settled villages and subsisted, in part, by cultivating maize and beans (Jazwa 2011; Leveillee et al. 2006; Little 2002; Thorbahn 1988; P. Thomas 1985; Waller 2000). The English colonists in Rhode Island also recognized the wide availability of resources along the coastline and they first settled and then fortified the indigenous landscape. While the landscape has been an enduring component of Narragansett Indian identity for millennia, the place name, Narragansett Country, is a more recent invention: a hybrid of the English and Algonkian languages, which emerged in 17th-century New England prior to permanent English settlement. Its use marks a peculiar European colonial 77 perception of the region as a territory to be mapped and brought under colonial control. The earliest surviving account of Narragansett Bay Giovanni da Verrazano in 1524, disseminated throughout from France to Italy to England by the 1550s, described docile Indians eager to trade pelts for trinkets. Yet, those enticed to adventure there at the turn of the 17 th century discovered instead a large and powerful confederacy of Native American bands, comprised of Indian traders keenly aware of the relative value of European goods (Bragdon 1996; Robinson 1990; Salisbury 1982; Simmons 1986). Seventeenth-century documents written by English colonists describe a series of large seasonal encampments down the coastline of Narragansett Bay. Some fortified villages, often named by colonists after the sachems living there, have been located geographically, such as Pomham's Fort in Warwick, and Fort Ninigret in Charlestown. Archaeological excavations of these sites have shown they were occupied intermittently from the prehistoric through the colonial periods. In the case of Fort Ninigret, settlement began during the Early Archaic Period (6,000-3,000 BC), but the majority of artifacts date to the the mid to late-17 th century (see Grumet 1995; Wilcoxen 1987:39; see also Rubertone 2008). In other cases, such as the excavation of the rock formation known as the Queen's Fort, named after the Narragansett sunqsqua, Quiapen, archaeology has not confirmed an indigenous occupation despite antiquarian traditions to the contrary (Rubertone 2009b; contra, e.g., Bicknell 1920, Vol. 3:1183; Potter 1835:85). The villages led by other sachems are identified in historical documents, such as the village inhabited by the Narragansett sachem Wemosit (Potter 78 1835:45), also called Pessicus, the brother of the famed sachem Miantonomi, who the Mohawk Indians killed in 1676 (Cole 1889:20). Most often, Narragansett villages remain unidentified because of the faint traces left by these types of sites in the archaeological record (see Leveillee et al. 2006). However, many Narragansett Indian sites used during the 17th century went unnoticed by English colonists.1 Archaeological excavations in the Narragansett homeland under the purview of cultural resource management have repeatedly discovered previously unknown village sites from the Late Prehistoric period, such as the Cove Lands Site in Providence (Bragdon 1996:66) and the Salt Pond Site in Narragansett (Leveillee et al. 2006; Waller 2000). Moreover, recent partnerships between archaeologists and tribal members have produced new insights into “ceremonial landscapes” comprised of rocks and other natural features, which staged seasonal feasts and other rituals (Harris and Robinson 2011). The size and density of the Indian population in Narragansett Country both attracted English colonists in search of trading partners and initially intimidated them from establishing permanent settlements there. John Winthrop observed in 1634, with a mix of anxiety and expectation, “The country on the west of the bay of Narragansett is all champain for many miles, but very stony and full of Indians.” The same year, William Wood placed Narragansett Bay on an English map for the first time, anticipating Roger Williams's settlement at Providence two years later, in 1636. Williams was first to live among the Narragansett, although he was granted only partial access to them (Rubertone 2001), during 79 which time he took extensive notes of their language and customs. He later fashioned his observations into one of the first “ethnographies” of a Native American population (Rubertone 2001), A Key into the Language of America (1643). The book served, in part, as an instructional manual for engaging in trade with the Narragansett. In 1638, Williams established a trading post in Narragansett Country to gain better access to the Indian trade and to stem the influence of rival Dutch traders from the West India Company, which had also established a trading post on an island in Narragansett Bay in 1636 (Woodward 1971; see also Wilcoxen 1987). During the second half of the 17th century, Narragansett Country was not only claimed by the empires of England and the Dutch West India Company, but also annexed as part of the English colonies of Rhode Island, Massachusetts Bay, and Connecticut—a political environment that bordered on anarchy until the early 1700s (James 1975, 2000). “[T]he arid quarrel over Narragansett Country,” writes Richard Dunn (1956:68), “was the most confused, petty, and time-consuming boundary dispute in all New England history.” The colony is unique for this bitter contest for territorial control and political power among and between various congregations of colonists and bands of Narragansett Indians. Faced with potential incursions from their neighbors, both colonial and Native, the Rhode Island colonists were alone in 17th-century New England to promote a democratic government with a church-state relationship centered around religious pluralism, after securing a royal charter in 1643 (James 1975, 2000). Although Rhode Island represents a unique case study of 80 institutional development, the role of the Narragansett Indians in this process has been systematically ignored (see Rubertone 2000). Nonetheless, the circuitous institutional development of Rhode Island was largely due to the presence of the Narragansett Indians, who, during the 17th century, comprised the largest and most powerful confederacy in Southern New England, a force far larger and more powerful than any other European group nearby. In 1675, the colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations consisted of nine settlements scattered across the coast and islands of Narragansett Bay and along the southern shoreline of the mainland (Figure 3.2). After Providence had been founded in 1636, an influx of colonists settled Aquidneck Island: first, its northern portion at Portsmouth in 1638; second, its southern portion at Newport in 1639. In 1642, a group of religious dissidents known as “Gortonites” settled south of the Pawtuxet River at Warwick. Permanent settlement south of Warwick commenced in 1651, when Richard Smith, Sr. bought Roger Williams's trading house and trading rights to establish the village of Wickford. During the 1660s, colonists settled Kingstown, in the southeasterly corner of Narragansett Country, and Westerly, in its southwesterly corner. At the same time, colonists living in the southern half of Providence, north of the Pawtuxet River, attempted unsuccessfully to form a separate town, called Pawtuxet. Colonists from Massachusetts Bay settled New Shoreham on Block Island in 1662, which only later came under the jurisdiction of Rhode Island. The jurisdiction of the settlements on the mainland south of Warwick, a region called the King's Province, was 81 Figure 3.2: Colonial settlements in Rhode Island, ca. 1650 This map shows the political boundaries between the New England colonies, sites of settlement, and the sites of attack before King Philip's War. 82 disputed between Rhode Island and Connecticut, a situation that created several zones of authority within the colony of Rhode Island: the Providence settlements, the Narragansett settlements, and the Aquidneck settlements. King Philip's War in Narragansett Country King Philip's War began as a local conflict between several Wampanoag bands and the Plymouth colonists, but quickly involved other bands and tribes and spread to surrounding homelands and colonies. While the Narragansetts insisted on their neutrality in the burgeoning conflict, they were among if not the most populous people in New England, with a population estimated at between 4,000 and 5,000 individuals (Cook 1973:13, 1976), and would largely determine the war's result. Thus, the so-called Narragansett Campaign—a preemptive strike waged by the United Colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, and Connecticut—was the single largest military expedition of King Philip's War. The campaign resulted in the war's most infamous event: the Great Swamp Fight or Massacre of December 19, 1675 when a combined force of colonial soldiers and Mohegan and Pequot Indians killed more than 1,000 Narragansetts and Wampanoags—mostly women, children, and the elderly (see, e.g., Bodge 1886; J. Drake 1999; Lepore 1998; Schultz and Tougias 1999). Thus, while Narragansett Country was initially peripheral to the conflict, it became “the geographic 83 epicenter” of the war (DeLucia 2012). King Philip's War spread to Rhode Island in the final days of June 1675, as troops from Plymouth Colony pursued Philip and his allies northwest toward Nipmuck Country in what is now central Massachusetts. En route, the Wampanoags passed by Providence where they burned 18 houses and wounded one man. Upon hearing the news, “prouidence men... ralied aboute thirty or thirty fiue, & went to ly in ambush for him [Philip], but he was gon by” (Harris 1902: 169). Troops from Rehoboth, Taunton, and Swansea soon joined the Providence contingent, along with Mohegan and Natick guides (Harris 1902:169; Connole 2001: 161). The Natives discovered the Wampanoags cutting wood nearby at a place called Nipsachuck, and the colonial army camped in a cornfield nearby. At dawn on August 1, soldiers attacked the Wampanoag encampment and a fought until nine o'clock at night. The colonial army “killd about fifty of phillips” and “stript & scined their heads” as trophies (Harris 1902:169-170; Weddle 2001:150).2None of the colonists was killed and only a handful was injured, but colonists judged the Nipsachuck battle a failure because they failed to kill or capture Philip who fled into Nipmuck Country. As the war spread beyond the Wampanoag homeland, the United Colonies hoped to secure the neutrality of the Narragansetts to avoid a larger and more devastating conflict. On July 15, 1675, military officers from Massachusetts Bay met with four Narragansett sachems at Kingstown to determine their allegiance in the escalating war, and the parties signed a treaty affirming their mutual fight against Philip and his allies (Potter 1835:167-169). With 84 the neutrality of the Narragansetts confirmed, colonists at Providence did not consider fortifying themselves against further attack until the autumn of 1675 when Philip's allies began attacking towns in Massachusetts. The Providence freemen assembled on October 14, 1675 to plan for their mutual defense. They voted first to impress every able bodied man into service as a scout under penalty of 5s per day for noncompliance, and second to allow individuals to fortify their dwellings (Rogers et al. 1893, Vol. 4:53). Roger Williams, a former captain of the train band, asked further consideration to designate a single garrison house in the center of town and to build a second fortification in the northern boundary “for ye like Safetie of ye women & children in that part of town” (Field 1902, Vol. 1:404).3 However, in contrast to the King's Province, a lack of supplies and labor hindered defensive efforts in Providence.4 Concurrently, the United Colonies of New England decided to wage a preemptive strike against the Narragansett Indians during the upcoming winter when a lack of underbrush would allow a European-style military engagement. The Council of War used their sachems' refusal to turn over Wampanoag refugees—in seeming violation of the treaty signed in July—as evidence of their true allegiance to Philip's rebellion. After months of preparation, including biscuit making, conscription, and thanks giving, the “Narragansett Campaign” commenced in early December 1675 (see Leach 1958). First, a northern army from Massachusetts Bay accompanied by Wampanoag and Nipmuck guides marched south from Boston, while parties of soldiers from Plymouth filed into the column along the way. 85 Second, a western army from Connecticut, made up of militiamen and several hundred Pequot and Mohegan combatants assembled for a march east from Stonington. En route to a rendezvous at Kingstown, soldiers attacked several settlements and captured dozens of Narragansetts and Wampanoags. In retribution, Narragansetts razed the garrison house at Kingstown before the armies reached it—the first direct attack on a colonial site in Narragansett Country by Narragansett Indians during the war. These attacks were preludes to the main expedition against the Narragansett village at Great Swamp on December 19, 1675 (see Drake 1999; Lepore 1998; Schultz and Tougias 2000). A Narragansett prisoner, identified as Peter by the English, provided directions to the secluded village where a battle commenced at one o'clock in the afternoon and lasted for about three hours. The size of the Narragansett fort was estimated at 500 wigwams—full of grain—all of which were burned while women, children, and the elderly, both Narragansett and Wampanoag refugees, attempted to shelter within them. The colonial army burned down and abandoned the village in the afternoon, carrying the wounded and killed through a snow storm, and walked through the night back to Wickford where they arrived at two o'clock on the morning of December 20 (Church 1827:62). One officer reported 68 killed and about 150 wounded among the colonial force.5 Indian casualties are more difficult to quantify; however, more than 1,000 combatants and noncombatants died in the fight, many hundreds more were injured, and unknown others died as a result of exposure or starvation as a result of the battle (Cook 1973, 1976). The massacre devastated the Narragansetts, but a 86 force of at least 700 men of fighting age remained in Narragansett Country. Approximately one month after the Great Swamp Fight, or Massacre as many refer to the engagement (see Lepore 1998; DeLucia 2012; Rubertone 2008), Narragansetts initiated a wave of attacks against colonial settlements in Narragansett Country. The first attacks, during the first weeks of January 1676, went unseen as Natives raided the outlying—and largely abandoned—houses.6 The freemen of Providence petitioned the Rhode Island Colony to help defend their town, but the General Assembly believed garrisoned soldiers would prove more costly than all their belongings combined—and, worse still, other colonies would “make prey of ” the Providence colonists if they were asked instead (Staples 1843:162). As letters were en route between Providence and Newport, the other Rhode Island towns were also coming under attack. On January 27, 1676, about 300 Indians attacked Pawtuxet killing two men and causing extensive destruction of property. Recognizing the precarious military position in Narragansett Country, the Council of War of the United Colonies of New England disbanded the remnant garrison stationed at Wickford to allow the soldiers to return to their towns. This retreat, sometimes called the “Hungry March,” largely ended the presence of the colonial military in Narragansett Country and left the towns ever more vulnerable to attack (Rowlandson 1682:A5). A second wave of Native raids commenced in March 1676 when Philip and his allies returned to southeastern New England. A raid in Warwick on March 16 left one house standing and one dead: John Wickes whose body was mutilated during the fight (Mandell 87 2010:100). Natives raided Providence two weeks later and burned much if not all of the houses located beyond the town center, which is said to have been spared by Roger Williams's riding out to meet the Narragansetts and dissuade them from coming into town (Greene 1886: 42). None of the colonists died in the fighting, although Thomas Roberts died during or after his retreat to Newport (Field 1902, Vol. 1:414). While the townspeople held a day of Thanksgiving following the raid, the attack revealed the precariousness of all colonial settlements in Narragansett Country. In March 1676, the General Assembly provided all the settlers there land on Aquidneck Island should they retreat. However, many colonists resented the government's abdication of responsibility to ensure their safety. The freemen of Providence petitioned the General Assembly yet again to provide them with military assistance which, on April 12, 1676, agreed to establish a “King's Garrison,” although the measure was not implemented until June (Field 1902, Vol. 3:414-416). Philip's offensive against the settlements of southeastern New England nearly defeated the colonial forces, but his victories were short-lived (see Leach 1958). Soldiers and their Native allies captured hundreds of Natives and killed increasing numbers of combatants, including the principal Narragansett sachems allied with Philip, as spring turned to summer. Just as King Philip's War expanded into Narragansett Country at Nipsachuck in June 1675, the last fight of the war in the Narragansett homeland occurred there as well on July 1, 1676. The Second Nipsachuck Fight was also a massacre as a combined force of soldiers from Connecticut and Mohegan guides descended on an encampment at the swamp. 88 However, fighting continued afterward in Plymouth Colony where Wampanoag allies of the English caught and executed Philip on August 12. Two weeks later, the Rhode Island General Assembly convened a court martial to try Narragansett and Wampanoag captives in their possession; the court sentenced many to death and others to labor as slaves (Hough 1858). While some skirmishes continued for weeks afterward, the war in Narragansett Country and much of southern New England was considered complete. Garrison Houses in Narragansett Country During King Philip's War, English colonists in Narragansett Country established as many as 10 garrison houses scattered among their settlements (Figure 3.3). The garrisons' locations followed colonial settlement patterns in the region when war broke out: colonists built two to three garrisons in Providence, two at Pawtuxet, and one in each of the other smaller, newer, and more far-flung villages. This spatial distribution of garrison houses created a north-south line of defenses running along the shoreline of Narragansett Bay, which facilitated the movement of troops—more than 1,000, the largest force assembled during King Philip's War—into the region. However, this “line of forts” was a permeable boundary rather than a military frontier (cf. Coe 2006). Garrison houses were also located in the areas of longest and most intensive use by Narragansett Indians (Figure 3.4). Historical documents disclose a prewar Native presence at most of these sites, and suggest long-term Native- colonial engagement at many of them. This geographical proximity made them ideal points 89 Figure 3.3: Garrison houses in Narragansett Country during King Philip's War 90 Figure 3.4: 17th-Century Narragansett Indian Sites in Rhode Island This map shows 17th-century Narragansett Indian sites (numbered) and their spatial relationship to fortified house sites from King Philip's War (black) (after Grumet 1995). 91 to strike against the Narragansetts, but also vulnerable to counter-attack. During the war, Natives raided all of the garrison houses in Narragansett Country except for those in central Providence, and burned down all of those that they attacked except for a single house in Warwick. Stamper's Hill represented the northern boundary of of Providence near the present location of North Burial Ground.7 From the settlement of the town, this place had been a Native cornfield; its place-name refers to the “stamp” or grist mill established there during the 1650s by John Smith, known simply as “the miller” (Rider 1907:55). While the site had long been viewed as strategically important, the freeman voted against building a fortification there in 1656 (Rogers et al. 1893, Vol. 2:91), whether for fear of retaliation for this intimation of hostility or food insecurity should the Narragansetts depart. In October 1675, the freemen decided to build the much-delayed fortification “to guard against “y e barbarians” (Rogers et al. 1893, Vol. 2:90-91). However, no evidence indicates a structure was built— either at that time or in the months to follow. Some antiquarian traditions suggest Roger Williams commanded the “Stamper's Hill Garrison,” but this is not corroborated by written records. Alternatively, John Smith's grist mill may have been used as a fortified house in lieu of constructing a new fortification nearby. During the raid on Providence in early 1676, Indians burned Smith's mill and burned and “defaced” a number of town records and land deeds stored there (Field 1902, Vol. 1:419-420). More likely, the colonists failed in their ambition to fortify the site and focused instead on fortifying dwellings closer to the center of 92 town. One of these dwellings was the home of William Field, which is identified as a potential site of defense along with Stampers Hill in an undated letter written by Roger Williams describing a plan of defense. Field's house was probably the only dwelling in Providence that was properly defended in the autumn of 1675. The designation of Field's house was probably strategic; it was located along the southeast border of Providence. However, the choice also reflected Field's standing in the community. When war broke out, Field was elderly, but still one of the most important political figures in Providence. By the time of his death in 1677, he had acquired approximately 800 acres in the area known as Field's Point (Hopkins 1886:43-44). Called Pumgansett by the Narragansetts, this area was well-known in the late-19th century for its midden heaps and Indian relics (Denison 1888). While Field's house never came under attack, it did become a site of violence. On August 25, 1676, the Providence freemen gathered there to execute a Narragansett captive, called Chuff, “because of his surliness against the English” (Staples 1843:171-172). The incident stands as one of the most brutal examples of violence against prisoners during King Philip's War. It also reveals the internal tensions between colonists and the lack of governing authority among the town's leaders. A third site of defense in Providence—the final house designated as a garrison during King Philip's War, the so-called “King's Garrison”—was the home of Nathaniel Waterman. Several years prior to the war, Waterman inherited his father's estate in Providence and, when 93 the war broke out, he was in the process of purchasing surrounding land to make him one of the wealthiest landowners in Providence (Rogers et al. 1893, Vol. 4:12). The choice of Waterman's house was probably strategic, rather than faithful service to the town, however. 8 According to one history of Providence, the Waterman house was located between between Stamper's Hill and the Edward Field house. “Between these two points, about where Waterman street enters North Main street, was the substantial house of Nathaniel Waterman” (Field 1902, Vol. 1:404). Others place the house nearer the intersection between Waterman and Benefit streets. In either case, the location was roughly equidistant between the two other sites of potential defense. Following the execution of Philip and the cessation of hostilities in Southern New England, the General Assembly voted to disband the garrison after 17 weeks of service. The garrison did not witness any military action, and the house survived the conflict.9 Colonists who had moved to Providence decades after its founding were assigned land in fledgling communities located farther from the town center. These frontiers became sites of violence during King Philip's War, and, as the colonial army's commanders discovered, the the colonists' houses were prime sites of rendezvous. Hence, the first garrison house used in Narragansett Country, the dwelling owned by Eleazer Whipple in the village of Lime Rock, in what is now Lincoln, Rhode Island, was not a planned site of defense. His house was one of the first built at Lime Rock ca. 1670 (Whipple and Carroll 2003). Here, the Plymouth army, volunteers from Providence, and Native scouts held their council before 94 the first Nipsachuck Fight. Whipple was among the Providence volunteers, and became one of the few colonial casualties of the battle.10 Following the fight, soldiers carried Whipple back to Providence and transferred him a ferry bound for Aquidneck Island where he convalesced, presumably with his young family. However, Indians razed his house during the spring of 1676 (Field 1902, Vol. 3:608). The pattern of land division in Providence created a problem where the wealthiest freemen owned a modest house lot in town and an “out house” on hundreds of acres on its periphery, which was particularly vulnerable to Indian attack. Capt. Arthur Fenner, commander of the King's Garrison, built himself a “house in the woods” circa 1655 near Neutaconkanut Hill on the present-day boundary between the towns of Cranston and Johnson (Field 1902, Vol. 3: 605). One antiquarian narrative suggests Fenner's out house was “used as a fort and garrison house, one of thirteen such, to which the terrified settlers fled for protection. It was surrounded by a strong log pallisade, and the soldiers were quartered inside” (Minnich 1896:263). A second account adds, “the celebrated Indian fighter, Colonel Benjamin Church, here halted in his Rhode Island campaign to inspect and instruct the garrison, and afterwards Major Thomas Fenner here entertained with due form and ceremony his associate officers, if not his whole command” (W. C. W. 1920:124). Yet, a lack of corroborating historical documents about the garrison and defensive works cast some doubt on the veracity of these traditions. Nevertheless, Indians burned Fenner's house sometime between December 1675 and January 14, 1676, when English scouts reported it 95 razed (Ulrich 2001:432, n.93). As colonists in Providence began to establish garrison houses, so too did colonists in the outlying towns, although their systems of defense were less elaborate and located farther apart from each other. One of two garrisons at Pawtuxet was the home of Stephen Arnold, a wealthy landowner in the northern part of the village on the boundary with Providence. Antiquarians report his “Mansion house” is now under Lockwood Street near Women and Infants Hospital (Arnold 1921:79), an inauspicious location for archaeological excavation. A deposition from 1678 reports Arnold's father, William, aged 88, was forced to abandon his own dwelling and seek shelter with his son, where he likely died during the war (Field 1902, Vol. 1:419). Arnold's house was definitely in use as a garrison until mid-December 1675 when soldiers from Plymouth and Massachusetts stopped there en route to the Great Swamp Fight. Arnold was later reimbursed 50s for supplies and labor. He probably abandoned the house soon thereafter when his father died. At that time, Arnold likely sought refuge with his brother, Benedict, in Newport, an action in which William Arnold had refused to partake. Circumstantial evidence indicates Narragansetts razed the house in January 1676, following the Great Swamp Fight, but no one was injured in the raid. The second fortified houses at Pawtuxet was the home of William Carpenter, one of the the original purchasers of 1638 (Reynolds 1911:524), whose house was located along the Pawtuxet River between the lots of William Arnold, his father-in-law, and William Harris. It was the more southern of the two fortified houses at Pawtuxet. According to genealogical 96 reporting, “The tradition of the family is that the house was a 'block-house,' … and that in it were all the neighboring families, who made a brave stand against the Indians, compelling them at last to retreat” (Daniel Hoogland Carpenter 1901:19). However, William Arnold did not seek shelter there, perhaps because of a disputed land deed, and went to stay with his son instead.11 Colonial soldiers also stopped at Carpenter's house in December 1675 for which he was later reimbursed. During the raid on Pawtuxet in January 1676, William Harris, whose son and slave died in the attack, reported the Indians “went to patuzet & ther burnt somee houses and an empty garrison [presumably the Arnold house] and fought against another, and shott fire upon arrows forty or fifty but ye English put them out, and in ye night time went ther way” (Arnold 1921:80). Harris was probably sheltering in the Carpenter house during the raid. William Carpenter claimed losses of his outbuildings, corn, hay, 180 sheep, 50 cattle, and 15 horses. Carpenter's house probably survived the initial raid, but it may have been abandoned at that time and burned down during the attacks during March. In either case, the homesite now lies beneath development along the Pawtuxet River in southern Cranston. Settlers south of the Pawtuxet River at Warwick elected an even less elaborate scheme of defense than at Pawtuxet, and set aside a single house, the home of Thomas Greene, as a garrison (Arnold 1921:80; W. Updike 1907: 401). Greene purchased his “stone house” from the estate of William Arnold sometime after 1663.12 The house is said to be “one of the earliest houses built in town, standing on 'the street,' nearly opposite the lane which leads to 97 the wharf at Warwick Cove” (Cutter 1913:548). Soldiers stopped at Warwick on the march toward Wickford, but, unlike Stephen Arnold and William Carpenter, Thomas Greene did not seek reimbursement for the soldiers' expenses and whether the army stayed at his house cannot be confirmed. However, in the years after the war, Thomas Greene petitioned Parliament with Randall Holden, another Warwick freeman, that the Colony of Rhode Island had abdicated its responsibility to defend the settlement by establishing a garrison in the town, and as a result of this failure, jurisdiction belonged to Massachusetts Bay. Natives raided Warwick in March 1676, but the Thomas Greene house withstood the attack—the only garrison house in Narragansett Country reputed to have survived a raid during King Philip's War. The King's Province was the most organized and best defended colonial territory in Narragansett Country. The locus of the military was the home of Richard Smith, Jr. in Wickford. Roger Williams had operated a trading house at the site, known to the Narragansetts as Cocumscussoc, between 1636 and 1651 when Richard Smith Sr. purchased the property and trading rights. After his father's death in 1666, Richard Smith, Jr. continued to operate the estate as a trading post and a farm with his cousin, Ester. Richard Smith, Jr. was a steadfast supporter of the Connecticut Colony's claim to the King's Province, and provided materiel support for the colony's war effort against the Narragansett from his house, where he stayed during the Great Swamp Fight. The army of the United Colonies, for whose succor Smith later claimed extensive losses, executed some defensive 98 works at the site, including a partial palisade as remembered by colonial soldiers. Soldiers marched captive Narragansetts here in the days before the Great Swamp Fight, whom they subsequently tortured with mastiffs and executed at least one man, according to a 17th- century source (Easton 1913:16). Antiquarian traditions provide additional colorful, but probably apocryphal stories about the encampment (e.g., A Story of the Block-House 1884; Hazard 1879:44). After the Great Swamp Fight, survivors buried approximately 40 corpses on the property. Soldiers abandoned the site on January 29 and began the “Hungry March” back to their home towns. Sometime thereafter, Natives burned down the house. The second of two rendezvous points for colonial troops in the King's Province was the home of Jireh Bull (ca. 1668) at Kingstown. In the months leading to the Narragansett campaign, the Connecticut government assimilated the site into the military strategy of the United Colonies. Bull turned his house over to a garrison of conscripted soldiers conscripted during the summer of 1675, and removed his family to safer ground at Newport (Williams 1988:698). The site was intended to function as the rendezvous point for soldiers from Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth, but Narragansetts burned the house and killed the garrison sometime around December 15, 1675 (Hazard 1893:10; Hubbard 1803; Isham 1918; Monahon 1961; Zannieri 1982). Three reported testimonies of Narragansett Indians from the court martial held at Newport during the summer of 1676 identify the raid on Bull's house, but none of the accused admitted to taking part in it (Hough 1858:181). Writing from Aquidneck Island in 1676, John Easton (1913:16) indicated the casualties 99 occurred because the garrison had not been warned of the impending assault on the Narragansetts at Great Swamp and were caught unaware. “Uncomfortable consequences” Narragansett Indian raids on the garrison houses located in their ancestral homeland were the culmination of a long process of resistance to colonial intrusion, even as sachems tolerated—and in some cases, welcomed—Europeans to settle there. Documents written in the 1620s by the colonists at Plymouth, the so-called Pilgrims, record intimations of hostility by Canonicus, a Narragansett sachem, to European settlement in Wampanoag Country (see Potter 1835:11). Narragansett attitudes toward English settlers became more complex after the founding of Providence in 1636, and continued to grow more nettlesome with each settlement thereafter. King Philip's War demonstrated that the colonial settlements in Narragansett Country remained at the pleasure of the Narragansett Indians. In the years leading up to King Philip's War, Narragansett sachems warned the Rhode Island colonists to abide by their agreements or risk a violent response. As Metacom (or one of his associates) is reported to have said to a Rhode Island colonist on the eve of the war, “when their kings [i.e., sachems] sold land the English would say that it was more than they agreed to” (quoted in Richter 2001:104). The long-term history of a single raid, the December 1675 attack on the Jireh Bull house, illuminates a series of intercultural disagreements over land—and in particular, this practice of taking more than was offered—that led directly to the attack 100 during King Philip's War. Jireh Bull, born at Portsmouth in 1638, came to adulthood on the cusp of the colonization of Narragansett Country. Like many of his peers, he understood from an early age the potential profit to be made speculating on Indian land. In 1661, at the age of 22, he signed the Misquamicut Purchase and its proprietors laid out 36 acres at Westerly for him, but declined to invest in the fledgling enterprise. Between 1661 and 1668, he purchased instead a 500-acre tract, including a 20-acre houselot, at Pettauquamscutt from William Bundy, one of the so-called Pettaquamscutt Proprietors, a corporation of five land speculators from Boston and Newport. He moved his family—his wife, Katherine, and four sons, Henry, Jireh, Ephraim, and Ezekiel—from Newport to Pettaquamscutt sometime around 1667 when his name first appears in civil documents (Figure 3.5). One of the first and wealthiest landowners at Pettaquamscutt, Bull quickly rose in prominence; he assumed political office as the first Co-Conservator of the Peace appointed separately by both the Connecticut and Rhode Island colonies (Potter 1835:71; Trumbull 1852:198)). By 1671, when the Governing Council of Rhode Island assembled at Jireh Bull's house, 19 freemen and their families lived at Pettaquamscutt (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:390). Pettaquamscutt, the second major English settlement in what would become the King’s Province, bears the Narragansett place-name for the region along the western shore of the Pettaquamscut (Narrow) River. The name perhaps derives from the large rock ledge, known as Pettaquamscut (Treaty) Rock, which had been a meeting place between 101 Figure 3.5: View of the Pettaquamscutt River from the Jireh Bull House Site 102 Narragansett sachems and English colonists since 1638 when Roger Williams secured permission to settle Aquidneck Island there. Between 1658 and 1661, the Pettaquamscutt Proprietors convened there to buy land from Kachanaquant, a Narragansett sachems living nearby. The Pettaquamscutt Purchase was a series of meetings through which the corporation secured and re-secured legal title to the land in order to perfect an ever larger and more secure claim that could withstand legal challenges raised by either Narragansett Indians or rival Englishmen. By 1674, the Proprietors had acquired 12 square miles of land and its mineral rights. The proprietors paid £151 and extended 13 pairs of coats and a pair of breeches on credit for which Kachanaquant was determined to be in debt to the proprietors for £13 15s.13 The Pettaquamscutt Purchase produced immediate tension among and between Narragansett and English groups. Reflecting intra-tribal dispute over the legitimacy of the deed, the earlier of two deeds between the Pettaquamscutt Proprietors and Kachanaquant was appended with a “confirmation” made between the proprietors and Kachanaquant’s three sons (Cole 1889:483). This undated appendix states the sons purchased land in March 1657 and in April 1662 from two other Narragansett sachems, Ninigret and Wanomachin, respectively, conveying to them nearly all of the land lying south between Pettaquamscutt Rock and the Atlantic coast, and extending westward beyond the Great Swamp. The presence of this appendix suggests the colonists feared Kachanaquant's sons held a legal claim to nearly all of Narragansett Country south of Pettaquamscutt Rock. Yet, three other English 103 settlers contested this claim, declaring Wanomachin had, in April 1661, “delivered seizin in the English form”—i.e., brought them a branch or some other piece of the land—conveying to them the land immediately south of Pettaquamscutt Rock. The Proprietors favored this second claim, which supported their own deed signed with Kachanaquant. However, the matter was not settled until 1674 when they induced Kachanaquant's sons to sign a document quit-claiming any prior interest in the land. However, the sachems later claimed none had “sould them any land there.”14 When English settlers from Rhode Island appeared south of Pettaquamscutt Rock on this contested land, four Narragansett Indian sachems, Wemosit, Ninigret, Stulcop, and Quequakanut, appealed to surrounding colonies to intervene. In 1661, they appealed to Plymouth Colony, which warned Rhode Island to “keep youer people from Injuring the heathen or others which they may draw vpon youer selues and vs vncomfortable consequences.”(Bartlett 1856, Vol. 1:452-453). The appeal went unheeded. After failing in this initial attempt to peacefully disperse the settlers, the sachems submitted a formal protested to the United Colonies of New England at Boston in September 1662. An associate of the Atherton Company, rival to the Pettaquamscutt Proprietors, who was working in his own self-interest as much as on behalf of the sachems likely drafted the legal document, which reports, [The settlers] have indeavoured to possess themselves forceably of the same both by building and bringing cattell, we having given them warning to the contrary, and they not taking warning, nor endeavoured to drive their cattell from of the lande, but 104 they resisted and one of them presumed to shot of a gun at us (Potter 1835:277). Accordingly, the sachems demanded the Pettaquamscutt Proprietors be brought before a “faire trial, either before yourselves or some other indifferent judges.” Should their claim go unheard, they warned that they would begin to remove the settlers by other means. Yet again, Rhode Island colonists continued to settle there, among them Jireh Bull. Bull's position as Conservator of the Peace thrust him in a mediating position between the various New England colonies and the Narragansett Indians. His first tenure at the post concerned the ongoing dispute over the rightful ownership of Pettaquamscutt, a conflict between Rhode Island, Connecticut, and the Narragansetts. When the Governing Council of Rhode Island received intelligence from an Indian on Long Island, via the governors of Connecticut and New York, that Ninigret and seven others from his band had been at a dance at Mount Hope with the Pokanoket Wampanoag for more than a week, and issued a warrant for his arrest on suspicion of brewing a plot against the English (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:267; Dorr 1885:205; Potter 1835:71). Ninigret appeared before the Council on July 28, and testified that the tribes were simply celebrating a bountiful harvest (Potter 1835:72). When a “broil” occurred between the colonists and Indians at Pettaquamscutt, however, the Governor appointed Bull and two others to force Ninigret to reappear before the Governing Council, in the company of the sachem, Wemosit, to answer for their role in an alleged plot to attack the settlement (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:281). Similar intimations of hostility occurred again in 1671 and 1673, and Bull likely continued to serve as one of the 105 primary mediators between the sachems and the Rhode Island government. In July 1675, Connecticut assumed direct control over Pettaquanmscutt and garrisoned soldiers conscripted from Stonington and New London, and perhaps Pequot Indian guides, at Bull's house (Trumbull 1852:338). At that time, 16 of the “neighbors” were sheltering there, as well. Despite worsening tensions between the colonists and Narragansetts during the summer and autumn, several Narragansett Indians, among them a representative of the sachem, Canonicus, either met—or attempted to meet—with Jireh Bull at his house to ask that he negotiate with colonial officials on their behalf (Trumbull 1852:372). However, with troops stationed at his house, Bull retreated with his family to Aquidneck Island for the duration of the war, where they likely stayed with either Jireh’s father, Henry, or his eldest son, Jireh Jr., both of whom owned farms at Newport. While stationed at Richard Smith, Jr.’s house at Wickford, Roger Williams observed, “Just now comes in Sam Dier in a catch from Newport, to fetch over Jireh Bull's wife and children and others of Pettaquamscutt” (Williams 1988:698). Bull may have stayed on at his own house for several months thereafter, but followed his family to Newport by the late autumn of 1675, where he likely remained through the trial of Indian captives in August 1676. Even in retreat, Bull continued to promote settlement in Narragansett Country. In September of 1675, he witnessed a deed to land six miles west from Pettaquamscutt Rock, near the edge of Great Swamp, at a price 300% higher than it had been sold for the month earlier (Washington 1921:111-112). 106 The only surviving Narragansett Indian perspective on the raid on the Jireh Bull house comes from records of a court martial held at Newport during the late summer of 1676. At that time, a court of prominent colonists, including Jireh Bull, convened to try prisoners captured as the war drew to a close. The records provide syntheses of Natives' testimony in response to charges brought against them, rather than reported speech. In one case the attack on Bull's house is brought up specifically, perhaps because Bull was a member of the court. The minutes report Quonaehewacout, a Narragansett Indian, “saith, that he was informed that all the Sachims was at the takeing and burning of Ireh Bull’s garrison” (Hough 1858: 181). Although the sachems are not identified in the proceedings, the term, all, suggests those present included the four sachems referenced repeatedly in documents surrounding Bull's house: Ninigret, Stulcop, Wemosit, and Quequakanut. The testimonies of Quanopen and John Wecopeak similarly identify the attack on Pettaquamscutt, but do not identify Bull's house by name (Hough 1858:180). While many factors undoubtedly sparked the raid on Bull's house, including preceding colonial raids on Narragansett settlements, it was a place of cross-cultural interaction on a contested landscape, making its destruction—a negative act of placemaking—a particularly potent act of resistance. Conclusion This chapter placed fortified houses and the attacks on these sites into a Native homelands context. First, I delineated a particular homeland, Narragansett Country, and 107 Native settlement patterns from deep prehistory to colonialism. Second, I traced the history of King Philip's War in Narragansett Country from the first to the second battle at Nipsachuck. Third, I identified the 10 potential garrison houses used by Rhode Island colonists during the war, as well as those sites that were attacked and left unattacked. Finally, I examined the history of intercultural engagement at one of these garrison houses, the Jireh Bull house, up to King Philip's War. By moving from broad cultural patterns practiced over centuries to specific Native-colonial encounters, I argued that Narragansett attacks on garrison houses represented the culmination of of decades-long disputes over colonial settlement in particular areas of their ancestral homeland continuously used for millennia prior to colonization. While violent, they were not random exhibitions of savagery described in colonial accounts. 108 Notes to Chapter 3 1 For a discussion of colonists' limited access to and biased perceptions of Narragansett sites during the early-17th century, see Rubertone (2001). 2 Other accounts suggest the colonists killed far fewer Wampanoag during the battle, perhaps as few as 14 men (Connole 2001:161). 3 While undated, Williams probably wrote the letter immediately before the Providence town meeting in mid-October 1675. Its contents demonstrates that Williams and Arthur Fenner, who assumed the role of commander of military forces in Providence and moderated the meeting, worked together to establish a defensive plan. However, the letter identifies the home of William Field as a second house to be fortified, but the records from the town meeting do not identify a specific house. This disparity suggests the existence of factions among the Providence freemen that hindered initial planning, and became more divisive during the war. 4 A lack of military supplies hindered defensive preparations. At the Providence town meeting on November 1, Arhur Fenner created a commission to inquire after a gun belonging to the town and to Stephen Arnold, which was last seen in the possession of Samuel Winsor (Rogers et al. 1893, Vol. 4: 53). 5 There is a discrepancy in the number of soldiers killed during the Great Swamp Fight. By another calculation, 8 colonists died in the attack on the fort and their bodies were abandoned, 12 died of wounds incurred in fighting before the march and their bodies 109 were carried back, 22 died on the march itself and their bodies were also carried back, 6 died within two days of reaching the fort, and 8 died of wounds while in recovery on Aquidneck Island. Three other colonial soldiers had died during the earlier, anticipatory fights (see Bodge 1886). 6 The first attacks on Rhode Island settlements came in the early days of January. Sometime before January 14, 1676, Indians burned Arthur Fenner's out-house at Neutaconkanut Hill, and probably others in the vicinity. 7 The derivation of the name, sometimes called Stompers Hill, has long fallen out of use and its derivation is disputed (Rider 1907:55; Staples 1843:117). 8 The decision to establish a garrison at the home of Nathaniel Waterman is curious. In years prior, Waterman had acted against the town's interests at Pawtuxet. And he later signed a petition in 1686 seeking Pawtuxet to be placed under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and the King's Province [i.e., the United Colonies' claim at Pettaquamscutt], along with the original secessionists of 1642 [Fortescue 1899, 7:255– 256]. However, just a few years before King Philip's War began, he had inherited the estate from his father, Richard Waterman, and was then in the process of buying adjacent land . If the committee had reservations about Waterman's allegiance to Rhode Island, their choice was probably strategic. 9 For its guards, they chose John Morey, Thomas Fenner, Henry Asten, William Lancaster, Samuel Winsor, Thomas Wallen, and Arthur Fenner, Jr. Arthur Fenner Sr. then proceeded 110 to confiscate powder and lead from townspeople and collect it within the garrison for use by these soldiers. For their service, each soldier was paid £5 2s. At double the rate, Fenner earned £10 4s. 10 In 1680, Whipple petitioned the town of Providence to reimburse the towns that had provided his care on his behalf. “I desire ye Towne to take Some Care speedyly that I may have ye mony that I stand obliged to pay for my Diett when I lay under Cure being wounded by ye Indians in ye late troublesome warr,” he wrote (Field 1902, Vol. 3: 607). The town approved his petition. “Voted, That upon the petition of Eliezer Whipple, the General Assembly doe allow unto the said Whipple the sum of tenn pounds in or as money to be paid unto him or his order, out of the General Treasury” (Field 1902, Vol 3: 607-608). Genealogists in the Whipple family erroneously suggests this was the first military pension of its kind granted to a colonist (Whipple and Carroll 2003). 11 Kinship provides a partial explanation for Arnold's choice to shelter with his son rather than his son-in-law, who lived much closer to him. However, the decision may have been reflected a simmering dispute between William Harris and William Arnold concerning a forged land deed to Providence (Rider 1897). This circumstance may also be why a deposition regarding William Arnold exists in the first place to identify Stephen Arnold's house. 12 While Greene received a house lot at Warwick in 1648, the date of construction and the lines of ownership of his “stone house” are difficult to ascertain. According to antiquarian 111 tradition, Greene built the house “[s]hortly after his marriage... which was a refuge for the people in the town against the Indians” (The Greene Family in England and America with Pedigrees 1901:49). Other traditions suggest Greene's house was originally owned by John Smith, president of the colony. According to one version of events, Greene bought the house a year after his marriage to Elizabeth Barton, in 1659, from James Sweet, his brother-in-law (W. Updike 1907:400). However, John Smith died in 1663, and his his probate inventory lists a “dwelling-house, stone house, orchards, corn land, &c.” (W. Updike 1907:403). After Smith's death, his step-son, Elizur Collins, inherited his estate. Presumably, Collins then sold the “stone house” to Sweet, who, in turn, sold it to Thomas Greene. In this case, the “stone house” appears to have been the earlier and less impressive of two houses owned by Smith. It must have been built prior to 1663, but did not come into Greene's possession until sometime later. 13 Land deeds related to the Pettaquamscutt Purchases are extracted in Potter (1835:276- 277). 14 While Quequaquenuet signed the original 1658 land deed to Pettaquamscutt, his mark appeared on no other deeds conveying further lands. 112 CHAPTER 4 THE UNSETTLED COUNTRY Introduction Narragansett Country appeared different to New England colonists in 1676 than it had in 1634. Whereas John Winthrop had once remarked on the large number of Narragansett Indians living there, a fact that had dissuaded all but the most intrepid from adventuring inland, the end of King Philip's War brought with it the understanding that the territory had been won through conquest and was now under colonial control. Whose jurisdiction was hotly debated between Connecticut and Rhode Island, as it had been ever since Rhode Island had received its royal charter. On September 15, 1677, the Governing Council of Connecticut declared, “Narrogancett country hath bin lately conquered by the valor and good conduct (principally of his Maties subjects of this Colony of Conecticutt, at great charge and with the expence of much blood,)... all other pretences of claim by any persons whatever, formerly,which are now made voyd by the late warr (Trumbull 1852:504). While the two colonies dispatched agents to appear before the Privy Council and win the King's support for each others' competing claims, a small number of colonists returned to their abandoned, burned villages to begin rebuilding the war-torn landscape—just months after Philip was executed. 113 Landscapes, such as Narragansett Country, were central to colonial encounters between European and indigenous peoples worldwide (see, e.g., Given 2004; Ireland 2003; Naum 2010; Sluyter 2002). Social scientists have long understood that spatial control over a landscape allows social control over its population (for recent variations on the theme of landscape and power, see, e.g., Crampton and Elden 2007; Feng 2006; Mitchell 2002; J. Scott 1998). Archaeologists sifting through the physical detritus of colonization have added that colonial landscapes occlude the subtle traces of indigenous cultural practices through spatial divisions, material culture, and ideology, although native peoples also subverted the fine lines of spatial and social division at the margins (e.g., Byrne 2003; Hall 2000; Banivauna-Mar 2012; Silliman 2009, 2010). In New England, colonization of the landscape involved the intertwined processes of extinguishing Native Americans' land rights and transforming the wilderness into something recognizably English (Cronon 1982; Denevan 1992; Hood 1996). On the other hand, dispossession of Native landscapes was accomplished only “by degree”—that is, slowly and partially (O’Brien 1997; see also Mrozowski et al. 2009; Reiser 2010; Rice 2010; Rubertone 1994, 2001). However, colonial landscapes were also sites of sudden, premeditated, and violent conquest by European soldiers, as in the case of King Philip's War. Scrutiny of the way in which scars left by war are covered over in its aftermath reveals “contested landscapes” where the outcome of colonial conflicts was reinforced by spatial divisions subverted by Native peoples (Bender 1998; Bender and Winer 2001; cf. Fontein 2006). 114 This chapter investigates the rehabilitation of the landscape of Narragansett Country in the immediate aftermath of King Philip's War through an examination of resettlement at garrison house sites. In this way, it illuminates the connection between the war and postwar New England landscapes. Fortified houses used during King Philip's War served as foci of resettlement in Narragansett Country, as the colonial governments used them to establish and maintain their control over the postwar landscape and its population—European and Native, alike. The chapter examines three processes of modification to the cultural landscape of Narragansett Country: first, the re-peopling of fortified house sites; second, the re-naming of the these sites and the surrounding communities; and third, the organization of paths of movement between them. Rather than representing a rebuilt colonial frontier and reconfigured social order, fortified houses remained on a permeable cultural borderland repeatedly crossed by Narragansett peoples. The unsettled nature of the postwar cultural landscape contested the war's outcome and contributed to cultural anxieties, if not outright hostility, between Natives and colonists. Ultimately, I argue that the intertwined processes of rebuilding—re-peopling, re-naming, and organizing movement—were inherently militaristic. As identified in colonists' rhetoric and corroborated by their spatial practices, resettlement constituted an act of aggression that attempted to cement the recently ended war's military outcome. Re-peopling Narragansett Country 115 At the end of King Phlip's War, Providence, the largest town in Narragansett Country, was approximately ten percent of its prewar size. In July 1676, when the town called a meeting, only 27 freemen attended, the rest having abandoned their property for refuge on Aquidneck Island (Rogers et al. 1895, Vol. 8:12). The situation was far more dramatic in all of the other towns, however, which were smaller than Providence, but either entirely or almost entirely abandoned by the same date. Most colonists living in Narragansett Country decided to take refuge on Aquidneck Island, and the colonial government had agreed to provide any refugees with land to farm to compensate for their losses. The emigration from Narragansett Country quickly and decisively shifted in the years following the conflict. In 1708, the first-ever census of Rhode Island reported the population of the colony was 7,181—composed of 1015 freemen, 1362 militia (i.e., capable of serving in the militia, including freemen), 56 white servants, and 426 black servants (Bartlett 1859, Vol. 4:59). (Census takers did not attempt to count Indians living in Rhode Island or include them as a part of the population, except those who were living in white households and were identified as “black servants,” like many children of Narraganset and African American intermarriage.) At that time, Kingstown, Westerly, and Greenwich, which represented all of the King's Province had a total population of nearly 2,000 individuals, most of whom had resettled there during the previous quarter century. Precisely when colonists returned to Narragansett Country is difficult to ascertain from the vague and sometimes conflicting accounts of their return migrations. According to 116 genealogical evidence, John Watson, Jr., born on July 22, 1676, “was the first child born in Narragansett after the Indian war” (Cutter 1913:558). While plausible, this anecdote demands the unlikely scenario that Watson was born in Narragansett Country before the war had ended.1 According to one history of Rhode Island, “by September and October, 1676, they [the Rhode Island colonists] had begun to return to their abandoned lands, and to rebuild their ruined houses and barns” (Richman 1902:256). The history does not identify any sources to support this claim, however. A town history of Warwick provides a third and even later date—the spring of 1677—when colonists “returned to their desolated homes, and with hearts undaunted commenced at once to repair their wasted heritage, and provide for themselves and those dependent on them” (Fuller 1875:81). Yet again, no sources are identified, but this appears the most likely of the several alternatives. Colonists probably began to resettle permanently in Narragansett Country during the early spring of 1677 when planting could resume, rather than on the cusp of winter following a ruined harvest. By May 1677, Jireh Bull was transferring letters between the governments of Connecticut and Rhode Island (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:583). The owners of those garrison houses which had burned down had been among the largest landowners in their respective villages—places that were now destroyed and abandoned—and Connecticut's claim of conquest promised to extinguish the titles to their prewar holdings. Richard Smith, Jr. was probably the largest landowner in all of Rhode Island. At its largest extent, his estate consisted of thousands of acres, including a main 117 portion centered at his house and running about three miles inland, and three contiguous lots at the southern end of Boston Neck (Dunay et al. 2003:23). The owners of other fortified houses owned smaller, but still massive estates: Stephen Arnold owned 750 acres at Warwick, William Carpenter owned 3 of 13 shares of the original Pawtuxet Purchase, Jireh Bull owned a 592-acre farm at Kingstown, Arthur Fenner owned 338 acres in Providence divided between woods, pasture, orchards, and planting fields. Eleazer Whipple, whose house had been garrisoned expediently for its proximity to Nipsachuck, possessed less land than any other owner: 70 acres of woodland, 6 acres of pasture, a 3.5-acre house lot, and 2 acres of meadow at Lime Rock, in addition to cattle and horses. These men had as much, if not more, to lose of any freeman returning to Narragansett Country. They made a quick return to Narragansett Country, in part, to prevent the usurpation of their land by rival colonists. Villages returned around these former garrison houses. In June 1677, Connecticut dispatched two militiamen to Bull's house “to take a view of the sd country and consider what places may be fitt for plantations, and what inhabitants each plantation may contayne” (Trumbull 1852, Vol. 2:315-316). The duo, one of whom was Major John Talcott, a decorated veteran of King Philip's War, journeyed for six days into Narragansett Country beginning on June 11, 1677. They reported a number of promising places to establish two plantations of 100 families each near Jireh Bull's house with suitable land for husbandry and agriculture. And they found many other suitable places in the surrounding landscape on their trip through to Aquidnesset, where they probably stayed with Richard Smith, Jr. Smith's 118 name is mentioned in reference to the ownership of a singular maple tree on Boston Neck across the Pettaquamscutt River toward Narragansett Bay. This detail suggests Smith was the “creditable person” who told the surveyors that Boston Neck had already been divided by the Atherton Company of which he was a member (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:596). While at Smith's the two men also received news that the Rhode Island governor was then leading 40 men to resettle at Elizbeth's Spring in Warwick. Settlement was most intense in the King's Province and threatened to rend already strained social, political, and religious relations between Rhode Island and Connecticut. To maintain order, the two colonies turned to Richard Smith, Jr. and Jireh Bull as representatives willing to enforce their rival claims, and seized on their houses as places to establish colonial governance. In the years before the war, both Connecticut and Rhode Island had named both men Conservators of the Peace in their respective communities in competing efforts to win the support of these community leaders and, by extension, the communities themselves. The importance of these two figures and the centrality of their houses was further entrenched by their role in the Narragansett Campaign. In June 1678, the Rhode Island General Assembly renamed Jireh Bull to the post (Bartlett 1856, Vol. 3:13), but left out Richard Smith, Jr. for his allegiance to Connecticut. In May 1679, Connecticut's governing council reaffirmed both titles, and, in the same measure, issued a warning to “persons some intrudeing and others revolted from theire subjection to this governement, resideing within this colony about the Narragansett country” (Trumbull 1859, Vol. 3:32). 119 Thus, Smith and Bull became the principal representatives of their communities in postwar Narragansett, and their houses the effective seats of local governance. By 1678, a trickle of colonists returning to the King's Province had become a stream, despite the constant threats of the Connecticut judiciary to head off would-be settlers. Some colonists were returning to land that they had claimed before the war. For example, the Rhode Island General Assembly convened at Westerly in September 1678 to reassert its claim to Narragansett Country, thereby suggesting the abandoned village had been at least partially reoccupied by that date (Trumbull 1859, Vol. 3:39). Other colonists had been enticed to relocate to Narragansett Country from Massachusetts Bay by advertisements for cheap, fertile land. Associates of the Atherton Company, rivals of the Pettaquamscutt Company, posted an advertisement in Boston in 1678 to “all Christian people, that are willing or may be desirous to settle themselves in a regular way of Townships on the said Lands” (Bradstreet et al. 2002; Figure 4.1). The influx of new colonists greatly concerned Richard Smith, Jr. who warned Connecticut from Wickford, “Rhod island setells dayly in Naragansett: if no stop be made, it will be hard to remove them” (Trumbull 1859, Vol. 3:269). In response to the resettlement of Narragansett Country, the Connecticut General Court voted to establish a new plantation of no more than 150 families so that it could “promoate religion, civility, and safety” for all those living there (Trumbull 1859, Vol. 3:15-16). Yet, Connecticut never realized its ambitions. Smith's observation proved prescient; the political landscape of the King's Province 120 Figure 4.1: Advertisement to settle Narragansett Country published in Boston, 1678 This broadside advertises fertile land for sale in Narragansett Country by associates of the Atherton Company. It was probably printed by John Foster (Source: Bradstreet et al. 2002). 121 quickly returned to its prewar appearance with three colonial settlements in Wickford, Kingstown, and Westerly. In 1679, the Rhode Island General Assembly received word that Richard Smith, Jr. had petitioned the king to grant jurisdiction over Narragansett Country to Connecticut, and subsequently issued a warrant for his arrest (Bartlett 1856, Vol. 3:49-52). Smith immediately began to cooperate with Rhode Island against Connecticut in the ongoing land dispute (Bartlett 1856, Vol.3:56-59). Indeed, the precedence of Smith's land ownership proved central to the case establishing Rhode Island's jurisdiction. In July 1679, Smith endorsed a second petition on behalf of Rhode Island along with 42 of his neighbors who together represented the “inhabitants of the Narragansett country” (Bartlett 1856, Vol. 3:60). The following December, the freemen of Kingstown gathered to draw up an “acco't of lands laid out & allowed by mr. Sam'll Wilbore & Compa. to Jerad Bull, & several others” (Arnold 1894:36). Slowly, the King's Province and all of Narragansett Country tilted toward Rhode Island with the assistance of Smith and Bull. Yet, the dispute was far from settled, and a royal commission was called to evaluate the rival claims. Much of the disagreement turned on whether the place-name, Narragansett River, identified in the Connecticut's colonial charter referred to either the Pawcatuck River separating Connecticut from the King's Province or to Narragansett Bay. On August 22, 1679, a royal commission from England assembled at Richard Smith, Jr.'s house—he, more or less, switched back his allegiance at this point—with magistrates from Connecticut and Plymouth and members of the Atherton Company to evaluate the dispute by scrutinizing 122 land deeds and hearing testimony. Rather than appearing before the committee with its legal records, Rhode Island convened its General Assembly nearby and, in the words of one representative, “sent us a letter interdicting our proceedings, which not availing, they sent their Sergeant Generall in a riotous manner” (Bartlett 1858, Vol. 3:141). However, the commission continued undeterred, eventually reconvening in Boston, although even the king's authority could not solve the crisis. The letters written by the commissioners further reveal the meeting was also attended by an unknown number of Native individuals. During the proceedings, which lasted several days, Herman Garrett and his son, two Pequot men with familial ties to the Narragansett sachem Ninigret (Barron 2006:14), appeared before the commission to testify on the legitimacy of land deeds they had sold some Rhode Island colonists. The commission ruled, “upon examination, we find the said Harman Garrett or his son had not any right or power to dispose of any of the lands, the same having been beyond the memory of a man possessed by Ninigret, the other Indians acknowledging the same” (Bartlett 1858, Vol. 3:144). The “other Indians” who denied Garrett's claim are not identified further, although presumably some Narragansetts were in attendance. For the remainder of the century, the two colonies would continue to consult with Narragansett sachems to bulwark their respective cases for jurisdiction over Narragansett Country. For example, the Rhode Island General Assembly turned, in 1699, to Ninigret II to confirm his father's purchases in Point Judith (Potter 1835:109). Even as they faced increasing dislocation and domination, Narragansett sachems 123 remained essential to solving the issue of jurisdiction. Government documents rarely specify where the meetings between colonial officials and Indian sachems were held—only their outcomes—but probably continued to occur at former garrison houses. Narragansett Country remained Indian country. As John Howland, an early historian of Rhode Island put it, “A wrong impression seems to have been received by many... that most if not all the native Indians were exterminated or driven off to the western tribes in the war of 1675-76” (Stone 1857:293). According to one estimate, fewer than 200 Narragansetts who fought in King Phlilp's War survived (Schultz and Tougias 1999:75). However, population estimates across Native New England are uncertain, and populations in the aftermath of war even more so (see Calloway 1997; Cook 1973). The 1730 census of Rhode Island, the first year the General Assembly ordered the counting of Indians, records approximately 1,000 Indians among a total population of 18,000, representing 5.5% of the total. By any count, King Philip's War proved disastrous to the Narragansett. However, comparing the postwar population estimate of adult males with the count of those who signed Rhode Island's petition to the king in 1679 reveals Narragansetts outnumbered colonists more than four-to-one in the King's Province during the early years of resettlement. As in the years before the war, large swaths of land lay beyond colonial surveillance. The King's Province, the heartland of Narragansett Country, remained the densest of Indian settlements. After the war, many Narragansetts assembled at a secluded fortified village on Chemunganock, also called Shamunganuck (Douglas-Lithgow 2001:7) and Watchaug 124 (Parsons 1861:30), in what is today Burlingame State Park in Charlestown, Rhode Island. Chemunganock was located about two miles westward along the coast from Fort Ninigret and, by one account, was surrounded by an earthwork for protection from the Pequot Indians (Rider 1904:293). When the sachem, Ninigret, died shortly thereafter, the eldest of his three daughters, a sunsqua, sometimes called the “old Queen,” assumed tribal authority (Potter 1835:99). Authority then passed to Ninigret's son, Ninigret II, upon her death, and under his leadership many Narragansetts moved further inland to Misquamicut in the southwest corner of Narragansett Country (Denison 1878:23-24; Grumet 1995:137). However, others remained on land in Charlestown on the reservation created by agreement between Ninigret II and the Rhode Island Governing Council in 1709. Ninigret II died about 1722, and passed his sachemship on to his sons (Potter 1835:99-100). While the largest population of Narragansett Indians resettled in or around Westerly following King Philip's War, they continued to use the majority of their ancestral homeland for traditional activities, such as farming, hunting, visiting, and performing rituals (Herndon and Sekatau 1997:455, n.4). In 1683, the freemen of Providence passed a bill “concerning Indians comeing into out townshipp, to hunt and fish &c, and doe thereby damnify out inhabitants greately.” The law stipulated “for ye future no Indian nor Indians shall come within our townshipp, (that hath not served their time in our towne), to hunt or fish, or to inhabitt” (Dorr 1885:227). Should any Indian be found trespassing, he would be stripped of his gun, traps, and any game in his possession—one half of the proceeds would go to the 125 person informing upon him, the other to the town treasury. Boundaries were even less respected in the King's Province where Indians remained on land that was beyond the reach of colonial authorities. As the Rhode Island colony gradually gained jurisdiction over the King's Province, representatives expressed increasing concern over the large Indian population living—or, from their perspective, squatting—on undivided colonial land. The Rhode Island General Assembly attempted to settle this problem by setting aside a 64- square-mile reservation within the present town of Charlestown in 1709. This “concession” pushed Narragansett Indians to the middle of Narragansett Country, between the burgeoning towns of Kingstown and Westerly, onto land the colonists admitted was predominantly “very poor” for farming activities. Yet, Narragansetts continued to cross their homeland both within and out-of-view of colonists (Herdnon and Sekatau 1997; Rubertone 2001). The close proximity of colonists and Indians in Narragansett Country meant the postwar period in Narragansett Country was not without the specter of additional military engagement. Colonists continued to rely on the established pattern of relying on fortified houses to serve as places of defense, rather than building more permanent structures. However, the town militias' officers were now seasoned from battle and recognized the ineffectiveness of these sites to withstand a sustained assault. They developed tactics to engage Indians in the field instead of retreating to houses to await assault. In March 1677, at the same time as when colonists began to return to their houses, the Providence freemen 126 arranged a Council of War, which was perhaps held either the Field or Waterman house, for the purposes of “watching, warding: Scovtting, or sending out such force as we Cann rayse to be sent out to range the woods” (Rogers et al. 1899, Vol. 15:168). In 1696, colonists across Southern New England were again put on guard of Indian attack. Those in Providence responded by resuming the wartime stance from Arthur Fenner's rebuilt fortified houses as a place of scouting, and potential defense. A third time, in 1703, during Queen Anne's War, Providence freemen prepared themselves for strikes against the Narragansett Indians by ranging out from their outlying houses into the wilderness areas in search of combatants. However, no further warfare erupted in Narragansett Country, even as intercultural violence continued to wrack other New England borderlands. Re-naming Narragansett Country Place-naming, or toponymy, is one of many tools of political power practiced across the landscape in the interest of controlling the meaning of places and the managing the identities of those living nearby, which was particularly amenable to colonists' dispossession of indigenous homelands in New England and other sites of colonization across the globe (for recent studies in critical place-name studies, see Rose-Redwood et al. 2010). In assessing the advent of local history writing in New England during the 19 th century, Jean O'Brien (2010) demands the renaming of Indian places was not merely semantic; rather, it separated the region's Native pre-modern past from the European colonial present, a process she terms 127 “firsting.” However, the strategic renaming of features on the cultural landscape identified in local histories was rooted in the 17th century, particularly the postwar decades when colonists began to repopulate frontier towns. At this juncture, colonists inscribed a new cartography onto the postwar landscape that sanitized it of its Native past. In Narragansett Country, Rhode Island colonists further delimited the boundaries of what they considered to represent “the Narragansett Country.” Second, they replaced Narragansett place names with English ones. Finally, colonists incorporated Indian place names into this refashioned cultural landscape as natural features, which diminished the significance of the Narragansetts who remained in their ancestral homeland. In the aftermath of King Philip's War, the Rhode Island colonists used the place- name, Narragansett Country, to denote the King's Province, which they generally eschewed because it appeared to negate the colony's claim to this territory (i.e., it belonged to the king). The circumscription of the boundaries of what the colonists considered to be Narragansett Country—in contrast to those boundaries held by Narragansett Indians—was a long, slow-moving process of dispossession. From 1634, when the place-name Narragansett Country first appeared on a map of New England, each colonial settlement in the region had delimited the place-name to refer to an ever smaller portion of the ancestral homeland of the Narragansett Indians. Finally, by the 1660s, when Rhode Island colonists began to settle in what would become the King's Province, they referred to their location as “in Narragansett Country.” The end of King Philip's War firmly resolved this boundary through the land 128 dispute between Rhode Island and Connecticut over this contested land. Yet, the term did not just refer to a particular territory. Insofar as the New England colonists considered the Narragansett Indians to have been conquered during King Philip's War, they also used the term, Narragansett Country, to identify the portion of southern New England that remained wild and unsettled. Thus, the colonists used Narragansett Country to mark a place that had been, but was no longer an indigenous landscape. In 1704, 38-year-old Sarah Kemble Knight, a Boston shopkeeper, traveled on horseback to New York City and back again via the Post Road through Narragansett Country (see Bush 1995; Deane 1858; Stern 1997). On the outward journey, she kept a diary recording her observations of the landscape and the local inhabitants, whom she greatly disliked, which provides a rare glimpse into the process of renaming Narragansett Country. While resting at a tavern in Wickford, Knight recounted she could get no sleep “because of the Clamor of some of the Town tope-ers in next Room, Who were entred into a strong debate concerning ye Signifycation of the name of their Country, (viz.) Narraganset” (Knight 1992:17). One man attested, Narragansett country “was named so by ye Indians, because there grew a Brier there, of prodigious Highth and bigness... called by the Indians Narragansett; And quotes an Indian of so Barberous a name... that I could not write it” (Knight 1992:17). The other demanded, “It was from a Spring in had its name, wch hee well knew where it was, wch was extreem cold in summer, and as Hott as could be imagined in the winter... and that was the originall of their place names” (Knight 1992:17-18). Knight 129 (1992:18-19) found this debate as interesting as “contriving how to bring a triangle into a Square,” but its terms manifest the degree to which Narragansett place names and folklore were then being contested, revised, and rewritten by inebriated colonists. Practices of place-naming also occurred locally after King Philip's War. When colonists purchased Narragansett land, they used only Narragansett place-names not only because they had no alternative, but also to ensure it was not sold again to someone else. In the years before King Philip's War, colonists often adopted a mixed-methods approach to addressing their locations—using the Narragansett name, the new English name, or both. In the aftermath of King Philip's War, colonists increasingly used only the English place-names: Louisquisset became Lime Rock, Cocumsussoc became Wickford, and Pettaquamscutt became Kingstown. Concurrently, Narragansett place-names persisted, but were relegated to landscape features: Neutaconkanut Hill, Louisquisset Meadows, Cocumscssoc Brook, Pettaquamscutt River, among many others. Hence, English places were social, active, and present, while Narragansett places were natural, unchanging, and historical. In this way, local practices of place-making meshed with regional practices. Changing practices of place-naming before and after King Philip's War are recorded subtly in the way Rhode Island colonists addressed each other and their respective estates. For example, the General Assembly addressed a letter to Richard Smith, Jr. in 1664, “our loving neighbour, Mr. Richard Smith of Narragansett Cohgomsquisitt, in the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence plantations (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:47). This address locates 130 Smith's house squarely in Narragansett Country by using its Narragansett name, Cocumscussoc, within the colonial boundaries of Rhode Island. Fifteen years later, one of Smith's former neighbors provided a different accounting of Smith's address in a deposition relating to the settlement of Narragansett Country. “I, John Greene, inhabiting in the Narragansett Country, called King's Province, ...affirme, that forty years and more, Mr. Richard Smith, that I then lived with, did first begin and make a settlement in Narragansett, ...severall years before Warwick was settled (Bartlett 1858, Vol. 3:56). The deposition thus alludes to Narragansett as an historical term and further drops the Narragansett place-names for both Cocumscussoc and Wickford. The change—similar examples are easily observed in land deeds, letters, and other political documents—belies a different relationship between colonists and Narragansetts in the different cultural and temporal contexts, as well as an overarching historical trajectory in their relations. In the immediate aftermath of King Philip's War, Rhode Island began the process of establishing new towns in Narragansett Country both prevent the usurpation of the territory by Connecticut and to establish new areas of permanent English settlement. In 1677, the General Assembly voted to establish a new town, called East Greenwich, to be located “in some convenient place in the Narragansett Country” between Warwick and Wickford (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:587-588). This name appeared previously on the colony's royal charter of 1663 (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:9). However, its settlement was not attempted—settlement began in 1668—until after the conclusion to King Philip's War. In contrast to the other 131 colonial towns established in Narragansett Country, East Greenwich was never referred to by a Narragansett Indian place-name, although many Algonkian names for rivers, streams, and pockets of land were known to the colonists (see Douglas-Lithgow 2001). Rather, it was always an English town with an exclusively, albeit invented English colonial history referencing the town of Greenwich, England. For the Rhode Island government, which provided 5,000 acres of land to those who would settle there, the establishment of East Greenwich was to represent the inauguration of a new governmental and social order in Narragansett Country (see James 2000:55), thereby breaking the landscape's physical and historical connection to the Narragansett Indians and to King Philip's War. The importance of renaming landscape features in the immediate aftermath of war was not lost on English colonists who actively practiced place-naming as a strategy of articulating power. In 1685, James II ascended to the throne of England, Scotland, and Ireland and quickly dispatched a representative, Edward Randolph, to govern Massachusetts Bay, New Plymouth, New Hampshire, Maine, and Narragansett Country as the Dominion of New England. On June 23, 1686, Randolph convened a court in the home of Richard Smith, Jr. attended by colonists from Connecticut and Rhode Island to finally settle the land dispute over Narragansett Country. The court ordered, “the three towns now in the King's Province, shall be called Rochester; the first and chief, formerly called Kingston. Haversham, the second, formerly called Westerly. Bedford, the third formerly called Greenwich” (Bartlett 1858, Vol. 3:201). Rochester comprised the southeast corner of the province, Haversham the 132 southwest, and Bedford the north. By this decree, the court not only partitioned the King's Province into three towns, but also combined Wickford and Kingstown into a single town. Rochester was to be the seat of governance, and Richard Smith's house its effective seat. The Dominion of New England was a short-lived experiment in colonial governance beset by resistance by the colonists, particularly those living in Rhode Island, who viewed its authority as in conflict with its royal charter guaranteeing self-governance. Residents of Warwick, whose land was suddenly impinged, immediately tore down the court orders, to which the king responded by sending a second governor, Sir Edmund Andros, to Boston to govern New England. In January 1687, Andros dissolved the colony of Rhode Island and seized its royal charter. Andros remained in power for several years until he was seized and jailed in Boston in 1689, and sent back to England. At that time, the Rhode Island General Assembly reconvened and immediately reverted the names of its towns in Narragansett Country to those that had existed previously. The only exceptions were Kingstown and Wickford, which persisted as a single town under the name, Kingstown. In this case, control of the names of the towns was tantamount to authority over their populations, although it is unknown to what extent local people used the town names established under the Dominion of New England. Organizing Movement Recent anthropological research has begun to consider the social significance of roads 133 as a manifestation of movement across the landscape (Gibson 2006; Llobera, Fábrega- Álvarez, and Parcero-Oubiña 2011; Snead, Erickson, and Darling 2009; White and Barber 2012). Roads were essential to the colonial process by providing access to the places, people, and resources beyond isolated European settlements (Levy 2007). However, Native American pathways and movements have received scant archaeological attention in part because they do not leave the kinds of easily accessible signatures as Roman roads of the Mediterranean or the pre-Hispanic roads of Central and South America. In colonial North America, Indian pathways are known by historians to have culturally specific meanings, particularly in relation to war, i.e., “warpaths” (Snead 2011). Meanwhile, historical reconstructions have revealed these networks as places of cultural interaction between Natives and colonists and resulting friction (Levy 2007).While archaeologies of colonial landscapes have repeatedly demonstrated processes of dispossession and resistance to dispossession, the role of pathways through Indian homelands has gone unappreciated. Control over and formalization of Narragansett pathways facilitated control over Narragansett peoples, but these roads were also places of negotiation. Their routes could be amended and re-carved to avoid surveillance, or walked in plain sight to encounter colonists. Prior to King Philip's War, the fortified houses in Narragansett Country had been interconnected by well-trod Indian paths running across the Native homeland. Called the Pequot Path, or Trail, by the Rhode Island colonists—that is, the road leading into the Pequot Country—it was part of a larger network of Native trails cutting through Native New 134 England, from the northern reaches of Maine to the Hudson River Valley (Figure 4.2). “It is admirable to see what paths their naked hardened feet have made in the wilderness in the most stony and rockie places, ” observed Roger Williams soon after settling Providence (Rider 1904:23). From the beginning of the colonization of Narragansett Country, only Natives traveled via the Pequot Path, a pattern that continued until the military aggregation in anticipation of King Philip's War. For example, when corresponding with John Winthrop at Hartford, Richard Smith, Jr. relied on Native messengers, Pequot and Narragansett depending on the direction of travel, who traveled via Stonington and New London, Connecticut (Jaffe 2010). Smith expressed pleasure when letters arrived timely, and concern when they did not (Bartlett 1857, Vol. 2:421-424; D. Updike 1937:79-88). In the years following King Philip's War, they increasingly relied on colonial riders, particularly recent French immigrants, to carry messages between the Rhode Island towns and the New England colonies. Reconstructing the Pequot Path on a contemporary map of Rhode Island is difficult. No 17th-century Narragansett Indian testimony survives, and historical documents offer only a partial and vague understanding of its course. The Pequot Trail frequently appears as a reference point in early colonial documents from Rhode Island, particularly in litigation over land ownership. It is also identified by different names—such as the roadway, highway, or a similarly vague term—in a variety of other sources. English colonists usually referred to the Pequot Tail as a singular path between their colonial settlements, which reflects their own 135 Figure 4.2: Route of Pequot Path through Narragansett Country This map shows the route of the Pequot Path through the southern portion of Narragansett Country following the testimony provided by Wait Winthrop with fortified houses and 17th-century Narragansett sites shown (after Grumet 1995; Miller 1936). 136 biases and reveals the limitations of these sources. These colonial tendencies were taken up by early historians of New England, who likewise adopted a colonial-centric view of the path. As one antiquarian explains, the Pequot Trail “is easily traceable from Boston, through Attleboro, Pawtucket, Providence via Weybosset and Broad streets to Pawtuxet and thence through Old Warwick, Greenwich, the Kingstowns, Westerly and the Shore Road of Connecticut to New York” (Bicknell 1920, Vol. 1:893). This route follows the approximate course of the contemporary Route 1 through Rhode Island, although the single scholarly essay on the Pequot Path in existence attributes this to “popular belief ” rather than historic fact (Miller 1936:7). During the 17th century, the southern portion of the path through the King's Province took an inland course between Narragansett Bay and the Pawcatuck River, rather than a coastal route. Partial descriptions of the Pequot Trail survive in a handful of historical documents dating to the early 18th century. In 1719, Wait Winthrop, who had garrisoned the houses of Jireh Bull and Richard Smith, Jr. in 1675, and had crossed from Connecticut to Narragansett Country many times, gave a deposition in Boston on the course of the Pequot Path to settle a land dispute over its proper course. Wait Winthrop, aged 73 years Testifyeth that the old Road or Path he hath many times Travelled in his Younger Time in Company with several other Travellers between Pequitt (Now New London) and Boston Through the Nareganset Country was by the great Pond from thence over the Long Hill or High Land above Rouse Helme his later Dwelling and from said high Land aSlant to the lower part of the Great Plain leaving ye bare Hills below the Plain which was then called Sugar Loaf Hills a great Way to ye Eastward the Country being mostly clear so that we could se a 137 long way before as we crossed the said Plain in a Direct Course as it seemed to me until we passed the Brook that runs down East ward and in the Same Direct bears the Path or Road led us near the Plain Field below [the Richard Smith House] where Mr Updike now lives and this was accounted the Pequit Road or Path and I never knew or heard of any other until many years after we went by the Stone fort and so by old Mr. Eldredges House and so by the Taun House to Maj Smiths now Mr. Updikes which way is far east ward of the old Road Which Leads Directly from the Great Plain to the Field abovesaid and which Path I believe is not so worn out but it may yet be seen to pass the Brook far to the Westward of ye sd Tan House (Miller 1936:8- 9). While the Pequot Path was route of movement across Native New England, it became part of the colonial landscape by connecting Native and colonial places. Withrop's deposition lists a series of natural features, Indian ruins, and colonial houses easily recognizable to 17th- century colonists in Rhode Island. Winthrop's deposition only covers a small portion of the path from Connecticut to Richard Smith's house. The northern portion of the Pequot Path, extending from Richard Smith's house to Providence, is more difficult to identify. It was not the subject of land disputes; thus, a deposition similar to Winthrop's does not exist. The lack of controversy suggests it may have followed the route of the Post Road, later Route 1, as indicated by antiquarian tradition. Nineteenth-century antiquarian reports indicate the Pequot Path connected the fortified houses between Smith's house and Providence used for attack and defense during King Philip's War. At Warwick, tradition states the Pequot Path ran the length of main street, a short distance from the Thomas Greene house. At Pawtuxet, antiquarian tradition reports the trail was the property line between William Carpenter and 138 William Arnold, where it crossed the Pawtuxet River. “William [Arnold] settled in Pawtuxet at the Ford or Indian wading place... This Ford was quite a distance up the river from the falls, and was located only a few rods below the present bridge on Warwick Avenue” (Arnold 1935:45). Then the path then led into Providence and beyond to Boston. The Pequot Path did not pass by the fortified houses located on the peripheries of English settlement in Narragansett Country. Yet, the Bull, Whipple, and Arnold houses were connected to the Pequot Path by other avenues. A connection between the Bull and Smith houses was established sometime during the late 1660s, although a highway is only identified on a deed from 1687 (J. Arnold 1894:160-161). The Whipple and Fenner houses were likewise accessed via other routes from the time of their construction. Both Providence freemen, Eleazer Whipple and Arthur Fenner traveled from the town to their outlying houses, although Fenner appears to have spent increasing amounts of time at his house in the years following King Philip's War. Some historians have argued these were English-built roads laid out soon after the arrival of settlers to Rhode Island (Miller 1936). However, the Pequot Path was only one of many Native pathways running through Narragansett Country. Given the number of Narragansett Indian sites nearby, and the ongoing connections between these places, it is more likely that colonists used Native paths, or portions of them. For example, the Whipple house served as the first fortified house used in the conflict in Narragansett Country because it was located along the path where Philip and his allies fled into the Nipmcuk homeland of what is today central Massachusetts. 139 In attempting to maintain surveillance over the Native and colonial population of Narragansett Country, the General Assembly of Rhode Island had long understood the value of controlling the Pequot Path. The arrest of Natives traveling along the Pequot Path during King Philip's War paved the way for further restrictions in the years that followed. When the Providence freemen passed a law warning out the Indians within their town's boundaries, they allowed only “as they shall pass along ye King's Highway, about their lawful occasions” (Dorr 1885:228; see also Jaffe 2010). Yet, these restrictions proved insufficient to palliate the treat of insurrection. In 1703, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed “An Act to restrict negroes and Indians for walking in unseasonable times in the night, and at other times not allowable.” The act created a curfew for all non-whites in Rhode Island. If any negroes or Indians, either freemen, servants, or slaves, do walk in the streets of the town of Newport, or any other town in this Collony, after nine of the clock of the night, without a certificate from their masters, or some English person of said family with them, ...it shall be lawfull for any person to take them up and deliver them to a Constable... And all free negroes and free Indians to be under the same penalty, without a lawfull excuse for their so being found walking in the streets after such unseasonable time of night (Bartlett 1858, Vol. 3:492). Contradictorily, in the postwar period, as Narragansett Indians were living at increasing distance to fortified houses and increasingly dependent on the farm labor provided by the settlements surrounding them, they were increasingly limited in traveling to and from their homes and places of employment. Similar to the practice of re-naming Narragansett Indian sites, the term, Pequot Path, also fell out of use in favor of colonial alternatives. Re-naming not only concerned the road 140 itself, but also its destinations. These subtle shifts in language and identification—which point to large ideological changes in the relationships between Natives and colonists in and around fortified houses—are revealed by several land deeds involving Richard Smith Sr.'s and Richard Smith Jr.'s holdings. A deed from 1660 describes, as a point of reference,“the English path or common Rhoad waye that goeth or poquitt” (Arnold 1894:94).2 By contrast, in 1686, it is called “the Country Road yt leads from the S'd Smith's towards Stonning towne” (Arnold 1894:141). Not only did the terminology used to describe the road change, but also its destination shifted from Pequot Country to Stonington. As in the case of the renaming Narragansett places, these subtle variations in language suggest the colonists were then reconfiguring Narragansett Country as a colonial space with a new present in which Narragansett sites were relegated to prehistory. By the turn of the 18th century, the Pequot Path had been refashioned among colonists as the Post Road. Messengers rode back and forth between stages, handing letters off to their counterparts. In the more densely populated towns to the north, particularly Providence, these were probably English colonists. In the southern towns, an immigration of French Huguenots living at the aptly named Frenchtown provided ample bodies to perform the requisite labor. As in earlier decades, traveling via the path remained perilous work because many natural obstacles—rivers, low hanging tree branches, and holes—to kill or maim in the dark. The dangerous nature of the work indicates it was not a desirable profession, and probably performed by poor men. The transition from Native to European 141 messengers reflected demographic changes in Narragansett Country, as well as an increasing knowledge of the paths through the territory by a larger number of individuals who had settled in previously undivided land. However, it also signals a lingering mistrust of Narragansett intermediaries. As Narragansett Country became increasingly connected to other colonies, inviting rival claims to the territory, the Pequot Trail was appropriated as part of the colonial landscape by rerouting and improving it. While the southern portion of the Pequot Trail had followed an inland path between Narragansett Indian sites before and during King Philip's War, this route was abandoned by colonists in the years after the conflict in favor of the coastal pathway running along the western edge of Tower Hill at Kingstown. Colonists used this rerouted Pequot Path as the primary road carrying mail between Boston and New York City, and quickly became known as the Post Road (Bicknell 1920, Vol. 2:767). The prior course of the path rested on the memory of aging veterans from King Philip's War, as manifest from the circumstances surrounding Winthrop's deposition on both of these matters. The postwar era also brought a number of physical transformations to the road through efforts to formalize its route and improve accessibility. The Post Road became one of three main thoroughfares in New England, known as the “Lower Road” (Bicknell 1920, Vol. 2:767; Jaffe 2010).3 During the early 18th-century, the Rhode Island General Assembly began an aggressive campaign to improve passage over the road by appropriating £200 for the construction of bridges across the Pawtucket, Weybosset, and Pawtuxet rivers, which were 142 completed beginning in 1713 (Bartlett 1859, Vol. 4:119). In an effort to capitalize on the growing commerce along this pathway, Stephen Arnold, whose house had been fortified during King Philip's War, built “Arnold's Road” to connect his newly completed grist mill on the Pawtuxet River to the Pequot Path, which has become Broad Street in today's Providence (D’Amato 2009:77). The fortified houses built to the northwest of Providence—outlying houses in the hilly, wooded regions—were too far distant from the Pequot Trail and remained largely inaccessible through King Philip's War. In the years following the war, however, they created a road from Providence into the territory toward Mendon, Massachusetts. At the Providence town meeting, in 1683, two men petitioned the council to create “A high way wher by A Conenant Roade may be maintained for pasing to loakesquissit” (Rogers et al. 1903, Vol. 17:14). The bill was approved and Eleazer Whipple and a neighbor were given authority to create the passage, which became the Great Road. Conveniently, Whipple charted the road directly past his house. At the same time, Narragansett Indians continued to cross through Narragansett Country, their ancestral homeland, via the Pequot Path. Rebuilt colonial houses were often the only places where Native refugees might obtain some food. Documents written at the end of the war occasionally identify Native peoples seeking succor. In one example, Mary Rowlandson, the famed captive, recounted in the culmination of her daughter's captivity that she and a “squaw” companion, abandoned by a larger party of Indians, ate nothing for three days, but eventually “they came into Providence, where she was kindly entertained by several 143 of that town” (Ulrich 2001:68). A letter written by Roger Williams in late 1676, nearly contemporaneous with Rowlandson's daughter's restoration, recounts a similar story from Pawtuxet in which a settler whose house had been burned discovered two Native children in his orchard: a boy aged seven or eight, and a girl aged three or four. They told the farmer an older boy had led them to his house and told them to ask him for some food, their parents having died during the war. In both instances, young children were led to colonial settlements in Narragansett Country and encouraged to beg for food—for themselves as well as unknown others who might not receive so kind treatment (Knowles 1834: 406-407). A third story about a woven Narragansett basket suggests it was given to the wife of Thomas Fenner, niece of Captain Arthur Fenner, by a Narragansett woman in exchange for some milk a short time after King Philip's War (Ulrich 2001). Although the exact routes used by Natives in these stories cannot be positively identified, they were likely the well-trod pathways that interconnected Native and colonial settlements, including the Pequot Path. Historian Laurel Ulrich (2001:68) even suggests that Providence, by virtue of the Rhode Island colonists' neutrality during King Philip's War,4 became a destination for dispersed Native peoples, albeit a destination of last resort. This belief might help to might explain the draconian measures taken by colonists in the town to limit the passage of unfamiliar Indians through it. Other oral histories recorded by English colonists indicate Narragansett Indians also continued to use Native pathways cum colonial roads for more mundane travels, as well. 144 According to Arthur Fenner, the grandson of Arthur Fenner and son of Thomas Fenner, who was born in Cranston in1699, “when a young man, on traveling the road from his father's house to town, it was usual to meet or pass more Indians than white people on the way” (Stone 1857:293). This road from Thomas Fenner's house, which was built very near to the rebuilt Arthur Fenner House, to Providence was the one created in the aftermath of King Philip's War to facilitate movement between these communities. Yet, it also appears to have provided Natives with the opportunity to more easily travel between Providence and their postwar communities, as well, during the early decades of the 18 th century. However, most Native journeys occurred out-of-view of colonial officials—whether to fish, hunt, forage, farm, visit sacred sites, meet relatives, or engaging in myriad other cultural practices tied to ancestral homelands. Colonial documents widely recognize these perceived transgressions, but relatively recount catching Natives in the act. This disjuncture suggests Natives were adept at avoiding surveillance and the subordination it entailed. Among other strategies, historical and ethnographic evidence indicates Narragansetts carved alternative paths through Narragansett Country to compensate for colonists' appropriation of the Pequot Path. Winthrop's deposition describes both an earlier and later Pequot Path, a source of great disagreement among local colonists, suggesting many alternative routes. Moreover, Winthrop reveals he had seen these routes change from old to new paths in as few as four decades, from his first visits in 1675 to 1713. This fits with other understandings of indigenous movements through Native New England during the colonial period that 145 successfully avoided surveillance. Insofar as Narragansetts movements were legally restricted, this re-carving of Narragansett Country can also be seen as a kind of resistance. Thus, while colonists generally considered the Pequot Path a single path of movement from Pequot to Narragansett Country, a Native perspective reshapes it as a series of routes between Native settlements and other places of cultural significance distributed across the Narragansett homeland. When unexpected cultural encounters occurred along the Pequot Path, however, they were rarely dramatic. During Sarah Knight's travel through Narragansett Country via the Post Road in 1704, she encountered only a single Native American of unidentified tribal affiliation. While she waited for a ferry in the derelict house on the bank of the Pawcatuck River in Westerly, an Indian-like Animal come to the door, on a creature very much like himselfe, in mien and feature, as well as Ragged cloathing; and having 'litt, makes an Awkerd Scratch wth his Indian shoo, and a Nodd, sitts on ye block, fumbles on his black Junk, dipps it in ye Ashes, and presents it piping hott to his muscheeto's, and fell to sucking life a calf, for near a quarter of an hower (Knight 1992:25). In the passage, she takes careful note of his facial hair, shoes, and downward gaze—perhaps comparing the impoverished man before her to the Narragansett of her imagination. Eventually, the owner of the house in which she was waiting and the Native began to chat, and Knight realized the former was father-in-law to the latter. “At length the old man said how do's Sarah do? Who I understood was the wretches wife, and Daughter to y e old man: he Replyed—as well as can be expected, &c” (Knight 1992:25). The exchange is, at first, 146 difficult for Knight to follow, but then she understands Sarah is unwell. “I remembred the old say, and supposed I knew Sarah's case” (Knight 1992:25–26). Thus, as she waited for passage over the river, Knight witnessed a tender moment between a European and Indian man over the health of a loved one. Paths of movement were also essential to maintaining contact and familial ties in an era of great uncertainty. Conclusion This chapter has examined the postwar landscape of Narragansett Country through three processes: re-settling colonial sites, re-naming Narragansett Indian places, and organizing and improving Native pathways of movement. These processes demonstrate that while fortified houses were no longer used as sites of military engagement, although colonists were still willing to prepare them as such should the need arise. However, as in decades prior, they remained places of cultural interaction between Natives and colonists which continued to function as places of cultural engagement. The nature of these engagements extended, rather than broke from, the pattern established by the military campaign in Narragansett Country. Resettlement, renaming, and controlling movement were antecedent components —highly successful ones—of the military campaign that helped to ensure the war's uncertain outcome. For colonists resettling Narragansett Country in the years after King Philip's War, rebuilt fortified houses became sites to reassert colonial control over their so-called “conquered” territory and the Narragansett Indians remaining there. However, Narragansett 147 Indians continued to live across much of their homeland unfettered by colonial domination, and crossed through the frontier established by these sites freely, despite efforts to the contrary. The landscape of peace in Narragansett Country was also a place of intense anxiety —and occasionally open hostility—between Natives and colonists. 148 Notes to Chapter 4 1 John Watson, Jr. would later purchase the Jireh Bull house and lot. The conflict between his date and location of his birth and the resettlement of Narragansett Country can be resolved by several possibilities. First, his date of birth may be misreported. Second, his parents may have sheltered in Providence where he was born. However, the Watson family is not identified on town rolls. A third option is the family sheltered with the Greenes at Warwick. Again, this cannot be corroborated by any other evidence. Fourth, the story might be antiquarian fantasy. Given the paucity of evidence, the last scenario is most likely. 2 In prewar decades, the road was not always called the Pequot Path, as demonstrated by a second deed from 1660 that refers “the English path,” but does not mention anything having to do with the Pequots (James N. Arnold 1894:100). Thus, the terms used to describe the path varied, but gradually became more homogeneous and focused on colonial terms and destinations in the aftermath of the war. 3 The “Upper Road” ran between Boston and Springfield, and the “Middle Road” between Boston and Hartford along other former Native trails. 4 Although Rhode Island colonists generally, but not always abstained from conflict, they were probably not as neutral as commonly believed. However, in comparison to colonists 149 in Connecticut, Plymouth, and Massachusetts Bay, they were considerably more peaceful toward the Narragansetts. Nonetheless, the execution of Narragansett captives at the hands of an angry mob in the final days of King Philip's War should caution against interpretations emphasizing Rhode Island's wide acceptance of Narragansett refugees in their midst. 150 CHAPTER 5 ARCHITECTURE OF RESTORATION Introduction By the summer of 1676, Narragansett Country had been transformed into a wasteland blemished by ruined dwellings. “In Narragansett not one House left standing. At Warwick, but one. At Providence, not above three. At Potuxit, none left,” described Nathaniel Saltonstall (1913:98) in a missive to his kinsmen abroad. Of course, Saltonstall's letter exaggerated the extent of architectural destruction in Narragansett Country; more than three dwellings remained in Providence, and many others were not entirely destroyed. However, its hyperbole reveals the way in which colonists used the precise, albeit inaccurate, counting of houses destroyed to communicate the social devastation left by the conflict. The letter also suggests the means through which the colonists could mend the ruin; by putting these houses back up, colonists might not only revitalize their environment, but also begin to restore their communities. The Rhode Island colonists quickly accomplished this “Great Rebuilding” of Narragansett Country (Johnson 1993; after Hoskins 1953). In the aftermath of King Philip's War, they engaged in the most spatially extensive and structurally intensive rebuilding episode in region's history. Within a decade, the vernacular architecture of Narragansett Country was more impressive than it had been before the conflict with a greater 151 number of larger and more elaborate houses. Thus, the war-torn architecture was not only mended, but the scars of war had been entirely erased. As geographically central and culturally symbolic sites, fortified houses were among the first houses rebuilt. Drawing on oral traditions, documentary sources, architectural drawings, and archaeological evidence, this chapter takes a diachronic approach to the rebuilding of fortified houses in Narraganset Country after King Philip's War, a practice similar to rebuilding episodes observed in human societies worldwide (e.g., Crown and Wills 2003; Joyce and Gillespie 2000; Rodning 2007). It differentiates and examines two related architectural processes involved in the restoration of these sites and their relationship to the rehabilitation of the surrounding colonial communities living on the postwar landscape. The first, reconstruction, refers to the replacement of the demolished structures, i.e., the act of returning the ruins to their prewar appearance. The second, renovation, refers to acts of modification, what Michael Owen Jones (1980) calls “add-ons and re-dos.” At the sites of burned-down fortified houses, these two processes occurred in sequence: reconstruction beginning about 1677, renovation over a long period beginning in the 1680s. Here, I explore the interconnections between the architectural renewal of fortified houses, colonists' horrific memories of the recent past, and the ongoing anxieties about Narragansett Indians living nearby to understand how these rebuilt sites reflected and created a changed relationship between colonists and Indians in the postwar decades. In the context of mid-Atlantic race relations, Christopher Matthews (2002) suggests periods of stress, or 152 “moments of danger” (after Benjamin 1968:255), prompt elite groups reconfigure the built environment, their conception of the past, and their place in the existing social order. I suggest this theory helps to understand physical, historical, and social modifications along the New England frontier in the aftermath of King Philip's War. There was no moment more dangerous in Narragansett Country than the end of King Philip's War because of the omnipresent threat of Indian attack and the uncertainty surrounding the colonial enterprise. The restoration of fortified houses served to erase the physical scars left by the war, and thereby to revise the history of architectural and social devastation, which both elevated the status of newly returned colonists and subjugated the Narragansett Indians who remained in Narragansett Country. Reconstructing Fortified Houses When the Rhode Island colonists returned to Narragansett Country beginning in the spring of 1677, they quickly began to rebuild most, but not all of the houses that had been garrisoned and burned during the war. House destruction—what some theorists have called “domicide” (Porteous and Smith 2001)—is a particularly symbolic act with long-lasting social consequences (e.g., Bankoff and Winter 1979; Stevanović 1997; Verhoeven 2000). For anthropologists studying the aftermath of house destruction, whether natural or anthropogenic, reconstruction provides a framework to understand the relationship between collective memory, social relations, and domestic space (e.g., Booth 1999; Gamburd and 153 McGilvray 2010; Winer 2001). In particular, wars leave scattered, ruined houses in various states of decay; their abandonment instigate a crisis of memory and biography—perhaps even shame (González-Rubial 2005)—for those returning to their former home sites. In postwar Narragansett Country, garrison houses were among the first houses rebuilt, unsurprising given the stature of their owners and their central location in their respective towns. Despite the omnipresence of further conflict, the colonists first showed an urge to put back what had been before, to restore the architectural appearance of their houses to their prewar condition. Similar to the history of resettlement at fortified house sites, documentary evidence does not provide precise dates when reconstruction began at individual sites. Instead, letters, wills, tax rolls, and land deeds provide dates when an initial phase of reconstruction had already been completed. The Jireh Bull house and the Richard Smith, Jr. houses were perhaps the first fortified houses rebuilt after the war. Both were at least partially rebuilt by 1677, when the Connecticut governor dispatched soldiers there to assess whether the surrounding landscape would be suitable for plantations. As argued previously, the soldiers probably marched on from Bull's house to Smith's house where they learned more about the land deeds to Boston Neck, an area owned by Smith and others. No evidence survives to suggest which project commenced first, although presumably they were concurrent. The dates when reconstruction began at the other ruined fortified houses are even more poorly documented. Reconstructions of the homes of William Carpenter at Pawtuxet, John Smith, Jr. at Providence (the potential site of the Stamper's Hill garrison) and Eleazer Whipple at Lime 154 Rock had all begun by 1679. That year, the Rhode Island General Assembly charged each town with collecting taxes on land and cattle. The inclusion of these names on the tax roll indicates each had completed a degree of reconstruction activity by that year (Austin 2008:37, 382). Colonists completed the reconstruction of those fortified houses that had been destroyed during King Philip's War by the early 1680s. Among the 50 known letters written by Richard Smith, Jr., a gap exists between November 3, 1675 and May 5, 1679, which spans the end of the war and the beginning of the rebuilding period. Writing from Wickford, Richard Smith, Jr. reported the 1679 harvest was “a greate yeare for frute and Coren; Sider in abundance” (Kimball 1912:128). Some of Smith's outbuildings must have been completed to receive this fecund harvest. Presumably his dwelling house was rebuilt, as well. Three land deeds from 1680 and 1681 reference Smith's dwelling house and confirm its reconstruction (Arnold 1894:105, 107, 142). In 1683, Jireh Bull hosted the Episcopal minister, Rev. Mr. Spear, who performed a religious service at his house (W. Updike 1907:344). This appears unequivocal proof that Bull's house had been rebuilt by this date; however, the incident was recollected in 1738, more than 55 years later, in the context of a religious dispute, which casts doubt on the reliability of the anecdote. Work at the Eleazer Whipple House was completed before 1684 based on a land deed in which Samuel Whipple, his brother, conveyed five acres of land a “little to the northward of ye said Eleazer Whipple his dwelling house” (Field 1902, Vol. 3:608; Figure 5.1). 155 Figure 5.1: Eleazer Whipple House, late-19th century (Source: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ri0111/) 156 The quick reconstruction of fortified houses was likely facilitated by the reuse of portions of these buildings. Seventeenth-century narratives from King Philip's War, such as Saltonstall's letter, frequently enumerate the houses burned down in the conflict, but they provide few clues as to the extent of destruction. Instead, they leave readers with the impression that colonial houses had been razed to the ground with little to no salvageable material. However, this probably exaggerated the extent of losses; at least part of the dwellings used as garrisons would have survived an attack by fire. Several of the garrison houses in Narragansett Country had been described before the war as “stone houses.” For example, in July 1675, Wait Winthrop, commander of the Connecticut forces in the King's Province, described Jireh Bull's house as “a convenient large stone house, with a good ston- wall yard before it, which is a kind of small fortyfycation to it” (Trumbull 1852:338). Others, such as the Arthur Fenner house were timber framed, but probably made use of stone to construct substantial chimneys. The stone portion of the houses, as well as particularly stout timbers, would have withstood some amount of fire damage. Thus, postwar narratives may have accurately described colonists' sense of loss, but were probably not entirely accurate from an architectural standpoint. When antiquarian William Field observed the Eleazer Whipple House during the late-19 th century (Figure 5.2), he wondered whether some part of its substantial chimney “may have survived the firey ordeal that the first house built upon this site went through” (Field 1902, Vol. 3:608). Evidence for the reuse of salvaged materials comes primarily from antiquarians who, 157 Figure 5.2: Exterior Photograph of Eleazer Whipple House, 1941 This photograph by George J. Vaillancourt (1941) under the auspices of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) shows the stone-ender chimney, as well as the construction of an early-20 th century porch. (Source: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ri0111/) 158 in the late-19th century, walked through the houses built around the postwar structures and, in some cases, witnessed their deconstruction. By the late 1860s, after its last occupants had died, the Arthur Fenner house became a well-known relic in greater Providence because of its curious layout: a central component built around a massive chimney with a lean-to on one side and a Georgian house on the other (Figure 5.3). When Norman Isham and Albert Brown, two of the first architectural historians in New England, surveyed the house during the late-19th century, they noticed that the summer beam did not run down the center of the house, as is the case at nearly every other house from the 17 th and 18th centuries. Rather, it was out-of-line by several feet—a conspicuous difference. They reasoned this idiosyncrasy was because the rest of the house had been widened during the house's reconstruction, but the summer beam, which may have predated King Philip's War, was left in place. Several decades later, the ruin was finally pulled down. After removing the casing from the summer beam at the Arthur Fenner house, a third antiquarian, William Field, observed, “one of these hidden timbers showed plainly where fire had once charred its edges; this had suggested that perhaps not all of the house was destroyed by the Indians, but enough remained to be used in rebuilding” (Field 1902, Vol. 3:605). Alternative explanations for the beam's charred appearance are also possible—taphonomic, such as mold providing a charred appearance, and cultural, such as a kitchen fire at some later date. Neither the house nor the beam exists to provide verification of its age, although a connection to King Philip's War is plausible. Richard Smith, Jr.'s house was the only fortified house in Narragansett Country 159 Figure 5.3: Arthur Fenner House, late-19th century This undated photograph reveals a house built in several stages, the center-most third representing the oldest section, the lean-to to the left being of median age, and the symmetrical Georgian component the latest addition. According to a series of architectural studies, during the 1880s, the central section was built over the original structure built for Arthur Fenner, circa 1655. (Source: http://sos.ri.gov/virtualarchives/items/show/14) 160 Figure 5.4: Artist's Reconstruction of Plymouth Fort, 1622 This ca. 1890 representation of the first fort built at Plymouth follows the description of New Plymouth given by a 1627 letter between Isaac De Rasieres and William Bradford: “Upon the hill they have a large square house, with a flat roof, made of thick sawn planks, stayed with oak beams, upon the top of which they have six cannons, which shoot iron balls of four and five pounds, and command the surrounding country.” It was replaced during King Philip’s War. This may have been the archetype for Roger William's trading post at Cocumcussoc built in 1637, which became the site of the Richard Smith and Richard Smith Jr. house. (Source: Kingman 1892:X) 161 Figure 5.5: Detail of 1802 plat map of Lodowick Updike's Farm The plat map of the former home of the Richard Smiths shows a series of dotted lines surrounding the barn and orchard, which are interpreted as stone walls. A similar line can be seen running in front of the “Mansion House,” separating the house from the garden. 162 where soldiers had erected defensive works, which had also been destroyed. One oral tradition of the site recorded during 18th century states, during the war “[t]here was a lintel running out north and east, one hundred feet square, one storie high. The void space in the middle contained the troops, that quartered here in the Indian wars” (quoted in Dunay, LaSalle, and MacIntire 2003). The record of fortifications at Plymouth, from which many of the men at the encampment assembled, help to elucidate the statement. On February 19, 1676, the townspeople of Plymouth “ordered... there shal be forthwith a fortification built upon the fort hill... an hundred foot square, the pallisadoes to be ten foot and a halfe longe; to be sett two foot and a halfe in the Ground; and to be sett against a post and a Raile” (Kingman 1892:XI; Figure 5.4). The Plymouth fort is the exact same dimension—100 feet square and one story high—as the fortification described at Smith's house. Yet, the reference to a lintel, the timber or stone placed above a widow or doorway to disperse the weight of the structure, has proved difficult to understand. It has often been interpreted as a misspelling of “lean-to,” referring to a building pitched against another building or wall. Thus, the oral tradition suggests the fortification at Smith's house had some additional structures built into the exterior wall to provide shelter for men or horses, similar in plan to the bawn-like architectural complexes drawn by early English colonists to New England (see Figure 1.2). These defenses were probably only partially completed, as at Lancaster Massachusetts and Fort Leverett, and had been breached during the Narragansett raid on the site. At Smith's house, reconstruction probably included the deconstruction of vestigial 163 military features left in a state of disrepair after the war. The palisade wall identified in historical documents written during the war does not appear in documents written after the war. Neither the 1692 probate inventory of Richard Smith Jr. nor any other document from the postwar era mentions a palisade wall or flanker on any part of the property. However, these features would not necessarily have been recorded in writing. On the other hand, antiquarian Elisha Potter's notes from ca. 1845 (1886:343) observe, “[t]he bricks in the front of the Updike house [Smith's great house] are said to be the same as in the front of the old fort.” This brick wall can be observed on an 1802 plat map of the house represented by a light, dotted line (Figure 5.5). Geophysical remote sensing conducted in front of the house showed a linear feature in this area, but intrusive testing of the feature proved inconclusive. Moreover, this brick wall was not necessarily connected to King Philip's War; bricks were not widely available in 17th-century New England and soldiers most often used timbers when constructing palisades.1 Systematic archaeological reconnaissance at the Smith house has likewise failed to identify evidence of a palisade, which should be identifiable as a series of post holes arranged in a 100-foot square. However, archaeologists identified a possible post- hole in 1994 in the southwest corner of the site that warrants further testing (Rubertone, personal communication). Although some deconstruction must have occurred in the postwar years, the historical and archaeological understanding of this process is circumstantial and should be considered speculative until further evidence is uncovered. Within a few years, fortified houses largely returned to their prewar appearance: 164 Figure 5.6: Reconstructed Plan of Arthur Fenner House Isham and Brown used the extant plan of the Fenner House and the location of the summer beam (middle of plan, extending from fireplace) to reconstruct the original layout and dimensions of Fenner's first house dating to before the war. The portion of the plan includes the central and lean-to sections of the house seen in the photograph and sketch. (Source: Isham and Brown 1895) 165 small, rectangular, one-and-a-half story, stone houses with chimneys built into one exterior wall. Prior to King Philip's War, Arthur Fenner reported his “house in the woods” measured “six and thirtie foot longe and 16 foot wide and is 9 foot and od inches between joynts” (Isham and Brown 1895:26). One possible reconstruction of this plan is two rooms, each 16 by 15 feet, with a chimney on one end jutting out another six feet. In 17th-century Rhode Island, colonists often used building modules measuring 16 feet square (Upton 1979). During Isham and Brown's survey of the house in the late-19th century, they discovered, when using the aforementioned summer beam as a guide for the original dimensions, that the western “lean-to” portion of the house measured 16 feet wide by 14 feet long. They also noted a depression in the soil extending beyond the extant foundation suggestive of an earlier foundation. Synthesizing the documentary and architectural record, Isham and Brown reasoned that Fenner reconstructed only a portion of his house after the war, although they admitted their interpretation of the seriation at the Fenner house was only speculative. The size, shape, and layout of reconstructed fortified houses is further supported by measurements provided by Isham and Brown at other fortified houses. The duo measured the oldest room of the Eleazer Whipple House located in its southwest corner at 16 by 15 feet with the chimney jutting out nearly an additional 6 feet (Figure 5.7). These dimensions nearly match those observed at the Fenner House. After clearing soil at the rediscovered location of the Jireh Bull house, Isham and Brown discovered evidence of three distinct foundations. A lack of provenience information for artifacts gathered from all three structures 166 Figure 5.7: Plan drawing of Eleazer Whipple House, late-19th century This plan drawing shows the interior rooms of the first floor with the possible original house shown in bold. The mirror image of the room is thought to be the renovation to the house noted in Whipple's will. (Source: Isham and Brown 1895) 167 frustrated Isham's attempt to discern which of the three foundations was the first built. However, partial excavation of Feature C, the smallest of the three discovered, revealed a 16- foot long western wall with a possible fireplace, suggestive of a chimney foundation. (The remainder of the structure was not exposed.) Based on its small size, Isham reasoned this was the earliest built. This may well be true; this structure is out-of-alignment with the remaining two. The similarity of its width to the two other fortified houses rebuilt after the war is also compelling evidence that it was the first structure rebuilt immediately after the war. The sole fortified house in Narragansett Country outside of Providence to have survived King Philip's War, the Thomas Greene House provides a representation of how these houses may have looked (Figure 5.8). The only known portrait of the house was drawn by Mary Almira Greene sometime before her death in 1880. Greene's picture is based on the description reported to her by Welthian Waterman, her grandmother, who was 33 when the Greene House was torn down in 1795. An etching after the original sketch shows a derelict, asymmetrical salt-box house with an attached section on the left. Both of these architectural components have substantial chimneys attached to their left walls, such that either of the two could be described as a “stone-ender.” The salt-box house, an 18th-century architectural style, is a later addition to the adjacent section. This may be the house built by John Smith before 1663 and later acquired by Thomas Greene; it appears to be a one-roomed rectangular stone house with a garret space above. The dimensions of the house are impossible to ascertain, but the proportions of the structure appear similar to the 16 by 14 foot plan seen at the Arthur 168 Figure 5.8: Artist's reconstruction of the Thomas Greene House, circa 1795 This sketch by Mary Almira Greene (1811-1880), as described by her grandmother, Welthian Waterman (1762-1849) is the only known representation of the Thomas Greene House . The oldest portion of the house—possibly the house used for defense during King Philip's War—is pictured as the “addition” to the left of the saltbox house. (Source: Fuller 1875: 77) 169 Fenner and Eleazer Whipple Houses, and potentially at the Jireh Bull House. In this example, the chimney juts out from the exterior wall, similar to the Whipple House, rather than pushing into the room, as in the cases of the Fenner and Bull Houses. Not all colonists rebuilt their garrison houses, however. While Stephen Arnold returned to Pawtuxet after King Philip's War, he reconstructed the home owned by his recently deceased father, which he purchased from his brother, Benedict, for £100 in 1677 along with its gardens, orchards, pasture, meadows, fences, and building materials (Rogers and Field 1899, Vol. 14:5). At the same time, he appears to have largely abandoned his previous house, the site of the former garrison. On his father's land, farther south at Pawtuxet, he constructed a mill and became a successful businessman (Arnold 1921:81). He died in 1713 with an estate valued at £495 (Austin 2009:18). His land holdings included his earlier estate, but he seems to have let the house site erode as a ruin. The location of the earlier, abandoned house has never been identified, although it probably lies under development, if it was not entirely destroyed, somewhere in South Providence. Other owners of garrison houses did not have the options available to Arnold. Already elderly when King Philip's War erupted, William Carpenter died just a few years after the war ended at the age of 80. While he remained one of the largest land owners in Pawtuxet, the majority of his assets were in the herd of sheep that was butchered during the war in the attack on his house. He died impoverished with an estate valued at only £22. There was little time, labor, and perhaps inclination for him to rebuild his garrison house after the war. Certainly, he never 170 recovered monetarily from the losses he experienced during the war. The colonists who returned to Narragansett Country immediately after King Philip's War confronted the domicide they discovered through a similar set of building practices. Although some colonists abandoned their houses which had been used as garrisons, whether to pursue more remunerative opportunities in other locations or from a want of labor or inclination, the majority chose to quickly and completely rebuild their dwellings. In these cases, colonists used salvaged building materials to rebuild their houses atop the garrisons that had stood there before and during the war. They also seem to have removed evidence of defensive works left over from the war, in those cases in which they were added, rather than adding military features to their dwelling houses to aid in further defense from Indian attack (cf. Grguric 2008; Winer 2001). Thus, the rebuilt garrison houses transformed back into domestic spaces ostensibly free from their use by military forces, despite their use by former soldiers as sites for scouting and surveying. Thus, the rebuilding of these structures restored them to a prewar appearance, and further erased any obvious connection to the recent past and the ongoing intercultural anxieties in the present. Renovating History In archaeological analysis, architectural seriation, or chronologically ordered design traits (Graves and Cachola-Abad 1996), identifies the frequency and occurrence of particular house forms over space and time (e.g., Deetz 1996; Graves and Cachola-Abad 1996; Lyneis 171 1986). These trends are often associated with changes in social structure and often reflected in other classes of material culture, which is particularly useful to historical archaeologists studying the linkages between colonialism, capitalism, and daily life among settler societies (e.g., Connah 1998, 2001; Deetz 1993; Deetz and Deetz 2000; Leone 1988; Upton 1979; Winer and Deetz 1990). The advent of the so-called “Georgian order” across the English colonies, ca. 1660 to 1760, has often been interpreted as signaling the rise of individuality and merchant capitalism (see Deetz 1996; Glassie 1975; Leone 1988). Yet, Georgianization was a “slow process of incremental change” with considerable variation across space, social class, and categories of material culture (Harrington 1989: 13). When applied to the fortified houses from King Philip's War, the study of architectural, social, and cultural change is complicated by the role of collective memory of King Philip's War and the preceding phase of rebuilding intended to erase any architectural residues of conflict. In Narragansett Country, the architectural seriation of fortified houses during the postwar period was defined not only by the rebuilding of the original dwellings, but also by subsequent renovation of the rebuilt structures, whether by modification of existing architecture or the construction of new houses and associated outbuildings. The history and archaeology of these renovated structures provides evidence they expanded the size and added rooms to the rebuilt structures, which are internal features typically associated with Georgian buildings. Although Georgianization did not occur in the same places at the same times or in the same ways, the end of King Philip's War punctuated the slow re-Anglicization of colonial 172 New England as colonists looked to England for clues to grapple with the residual uncertainties from the conflict. For example, I have argued previously that colonists began to place gravestones in New England in large numbers only after King Philip's War, borrowing from English antecedents, to commemorate through public display a new, triumphal colonial history of the Puritan elite to replace collective memory of the war's horrors (Porter 2009). If the initial phase of rebuilding was an expedient method of restoring physical, mnemonic, and social order on the postwar landscape, then renovations served to create a more formal, or planned, and durable solution to confronting the uncertainties about a the future. Yet, scrutiny at variation in architectural modifications reveals competing influences—local idiosyncratic styles and archaic, post-medieval styles (cf. Winer and Deetz 1990)—as architectural and social designs for the future of Narragansett Country. If the initial phase of reconstruction occurred in a wave beginning in 1677, then the period of renovation was a slow-moving tide that swept away traces of the prewar houses by incorporating them into larger houses or, in some cases, tearing them down for larger, more fashionable structures. This second building episode was, in a sense, about moving beyond the immediate aftermath of the war; colonists did not endeavor to reproduce their prewar houses, but drew on a variety of vernacular building practices to create new dwellings further removed from a militaristic history. Probate inventories provide a wealth of information about fortified house sites several years or decades after reconstruction began, in addition to other lines of documentary, architectural and archaeological evidence. Those who inherited 173 and subsequently renovated fortified houses were no strangers to King Philip's War; they, too, had experienced the conflict as children and, while they may not have known personally those who died during the fighting, their reconfiguration of fortified houses existed in dialog with their memory of the war. During the period of renovation, colonists in Narragansett Country created houses that have become identifiable as “stone enders” for a massive stone chimney forming most or all of an exterior wall of the house. Limestone deposits had been discovered at Lime Rock during the 1660s, which was necessary to create mortar to hold together these massive chimneys (Jenison 1976). While some scholars believed the stone-ender style emerged contemporaneously with the discovery of the deposits (Jenison 1976), the fortified houses near Lime Rock, the Eleazer Whipple and Arthur Fenner Houses, both of which were characteristic of the stone-ender style prior to their demolition in the late-19 th century, suggest this particular building practice appeared several decades later beginning in the 1680s and continuing through the 1710s. Certainly, many of the essential building practices were already in place by then. By the outbreak of King Philip's War, Rhode Island colonists were building houses with large chimneys at one end that made extensive use of mortar. However, they were too rudimentary, compared to what they would later become to be considered anything more than an evolutionary precursor. In the case of the Fenner and Whipple houses, the stone-ender developed as part of renovation to the house reconstructed in the aftermath of King Philip's War by an agglomeration of additional rooms. 174 At the Arthur Fenner House, Norman Isham and Albert Brown found the summer beam was out-of-alignment with the center of the oldest portion of the house because it had been widened by six feet—creating a room measuring approximately 16 by 20 feet—to accommodate a much larger chimney stack that incorporated the original. Similarly, during their inspection of the Eleazer Whipple House, Isham and Brown discovered a second “house,” with its own beams, girts, and chimney, built behind the first. The second room, located to the north of the first room, was added sometime before 1714, the date of Whipple's will. The two rooms are identified in the document, which contained a provision for his wife, Alice Whipple, who “shall have the privilege of that part of my dwelling house which I built which is the southern part during the term of her natural life” (Field 1902, Vol. 3:609). Interestingly, Whipple distinguishes in his will between the part of the house he built and the part he did not, indicating he commissioned the addition. Isham and Brown recognized a similar construction method in the Thomas Fenner house, the home of Arthur Fenner's son, which was begun after the war, located nearby. A similarity in location and construction method suggests rebuilt and renovated fortified houses served as examples for new houses to accommodate those who streamed into Narragansett Country, possibly the work of a small number of house wrights. Renovation at the Jireh Bull House Renovation at the Jireh Bull house combined local and regional styles to develop a 175 vernacular architecture unique to Narragansett Country: a byre-house made almost entirely of stone. Bull's house is also the only fortified house with identifiable architectural remains dated to the 17th and 18th centuries. As a result, it provides the most detailed view of a dwelling house during the postwar decades. The main architectural complex is composed of two free-standing, but related structures identified by archaeologists as Features A and B (Burlingame et al. 1918; Isham 1918). In 1917 workmen cleared the surface of both features to expose their dimensions (Figure 5.9). The larger of the two, Feature B, has two roughly square rooms measuring 27 feet wide by 65 feet long in total. Hearths were found in both rooms: one along the far western wall of the structure and the other in the middle of the structure in a cross-passage arrangement. Feature A is located immediately to the east of Feature B, and has a double hearth built into the western wall. The single room measures 30 by 40 feet. The shape, size, and layout of Feature A suggest it was built after Feature B based on its symmetry (Burlingame et al. 1918). The extensive, but poorly recorded archaeological excavations at the Jireh Bull House Site provide a limited perspective on site formation processes, primarily abandonment of the dwelling and decay of the superstructure, which are essential to interpreting the “house floor assemblage” (Schiffer and LaMotta 1999; see also Schiffer 1996). According to excavators reports from 1917, the gables of the house fell inward into the site covering the objects left in the house (Burlingame et al. 1918; Isham 1918). The nearly complete excavation of the two main foundations precludes any further attempt to determine the taphonomy of the primary 176 Figure 5.9: Excavations at the Jireh Bull House, 1917 The photograph shows the cleared foundations for Feature B. The backdirt pile excavated in 1981 can be seen in the right side of the photograph. (Source: http://rihs.wordpress.com) 177 house structures based on contextual evidence gathered from soils and the vertical distribution of artifacts. (Future excavation of Feature C, which was only partially excavated, as confirmed in 1981, may offer additional insight into site abandonment and taphonomy.) However, the large number and varied condition of the artifact assemblage provides a partial perspective on the process of abandonment and decay. A large number of architectural artifacts, particularly nails, was recovered from within the house foundations suggesting the walls did fall inward (Figure 5.10). Moreover, other artifacts appear to have been left in place at the time of abandonment, particularly a door lock and key which have rusted together as though the last inhabitant left the house but never returned. A second, different key was also found inside the house. Furthermore, the number of window leads and window glass indicates the windows had been left in place when the site was abandoned. Archaeologists also recovered many domestic artifacts, particularly pipe stems, ceramics, and glass, within the house foundations, presumably beneath the architectural residues. However, they found few complete, portable objects in good condition; all the glass bottles and domestic ceramics are fragmentary, and complete iron items were well-worn and, in some cases, broken. Oral traditions further indicate the foundation stones had been extensively scavenged to build a farmhouse farther north during the early 19 th century (Burlingame et al. 1918; Isham 1918). These varied insights into the life-history of the house suggest differential abandonment (cf. Stevenson 1982): an unplanned episode of abandonment suggested by a lack of cleaning, followed by a second, planned scavenging of the site that left behind only worthless junk and 178 Figure 5.10: Artifacts collected from the Jireh Bull House, 1917 A display of artifacts in Norman Isham's personal collection excavated in 1917. The majority of these artifacts is now curated by the Rhode Island Historical Society. (Source: http://rihs.wordpress.com) 179 scraps. When considered as a single architectural unit, the two structures represent a single “byre house” or “long house” arrangement measuring 34 feet wide by 130 feet long. A product of medieval building practices in rural parts of England, Scotland, and Wales that combined human and animal housing, long houses were among the earliest produced architectural forms recreated in New England. For example, excavations at the Phips Site in Maine (ca. 1639-1676) identified post-in-ground long house in two identifiable segments measuring 15 by 132 feet in total (Baker n.d.). By contrast, all of the houses at the Jireh Bull House Site had stone footings and appear to have been constructed predominantly of stone, and were nearly twice as wide. Hence, the Jireh Bull House appears to have combined local, contemporary elements from stone enders—building material, western chimney wall, and width dimension—with the regional, antiquated length of long houses. The Jireh Bull “longhouse” comprised part of a larger architectural complex of structures evoking a connection to Connecticut Colony and the English world beyond. Among them was Feature C, the 16 foot wide structure to the south of the longhouse, possibly the initial reconstructed dwelling. It continued to be used in the postwar period as evidenced by the discovery of ceramics there, which are contemporary with those from Features A and B. Excavations at the Jireh Bull House Site in 1917 also exposed a stone wall running westward from the exterior wall of Feature B, which turned south and then eastward. Together with the northern walls of Features A and B, the wall probably enclosed the entire building complex. 180 This layout has been interpreted as a “courtyarded farm” plan or “bawn,” after English reinterpretations of independently defensible agricultural sites in colonial Ireland (St. George 1986). The excavated plan appears similar to portions of building plans drawn by John Winthrop, Jr. (ca. 1635), Governor of Connecticut, and Bray Rossiter (ca. 1652-1660) (St. George 1990). These drawings picture houses and associated outbuildings enclosed within rectangular, walled compounds. Neither of these sites has been identified archaeologically, nor has another building similar to the Jireh Bull House been discovered in either Connecticut or Rhode Island. The Jireh Bull House does have a Connecticut connection, however. The Governor of Connecticut, John Winthrop, Jr., may have been the impetus for the idiosyncratic style. He sent his, Wait Winthrop, to garrison the house, who subsequently reported the condition of the Jireh Bull House back to his father in 1675 during the buildup to King Philip's War. The architectural plan realized at Jireh Bull House Site is far less ambitious than those imagined by either Winthrop or Rossiter. The excavated area may represent the realized portion of a larger planned complex. The architectural complex also consisted of subterranean features distributed around the house lot associated with food storage and trash disposal (Figure 5.11). Whereas the 1917 excavations focused exclusively on the structural footprints, archaeological excavations in 1981 extended the research area through the use of an augur survey followed by extrusive testing. This method yielded a variety of broken ceramics and other domestic artifacts north Features A and B indicative of a midden area. It also produced a concentration of seeds in an 181 Figure 5.11: Composite Site Map of Jireh Bull House Site This map combines archaeological site maps from 1917 and 1981 (after Isham 1918; Mrozowski 1981). Excavation units are shown in blue. Feature A is in to the northeast, Feature B is in the northwest, and Feature C is south of these two features. 182 area to the south of Feature B, which may be traces of a root cellar. Insofar as none of the buildings contained a cellar, another area nearby must have been used for food storage to sustain the household through the winter months. Together, these two features indicate cultural activity areas extended beyond both the exterior walls of the several buildings and the wall of the compound. Yet, the 1981 survey was only preliminary. Further testing of the site using geophysical remote sensing technologies will undoubtedly identify new archaeological features, and further excavation of previously identified features will lead to a more refined interpretation of these areas and the site as a whole. While the two primary structures at the Jireh Bull House Site were once thought to have been built before King Philip's War, artifacts collected from them—primarily those associated with kitchen activities and tobacco smoking—indicate an approximately 40-year period of occupation, from 1675 to 1715 (Figure 5.12). The mean-ceramic date derived from 251 fragments recovered from the across the entire site is 1713, within a range of 1668 to 1738 for individual levels within the units. The style of three pewter spoons suggest a more refined date range: the first a trifid-style (1675-1714); the second a baluster-knob type (1675 -1700); and the third bearing the touchmark, R S, which may be the work of either Richard Smith (London, 1685-1700) or Robert Sere (London, 1689-1694) (Davis 2003:165). Data derived from pipe stems and bowls provide corroborating evidence: the mean date of occupation was 1700 according to the average bore diameter of the pipe stems (Heighton and Deagan 1971), and 1704 according to the pipe bowl shapes (Mallios 2005; 183 Figure 5.12: Architectural Sequence of Jireh Bull House This plan shows the hypothetical construction sequence of Jireh Bull's houses. Number 1 may be the prewar structure, but further excavation is necessary to determine that it was not an outbuilding associated with the other foundation. 184 Figure 5.13). Four pipe bowls have identifiable maker's marks: three bowls were stamped, R T, and one is stamped, L E. These marks may identify two pipe makers working in Bristol, England: Robert Tippett II (1678-1713) or Llewellin Evans (1661-1686). (An additional mark, W W, is described by Monahon (1961), but this mark was not identified in a reanalysis of the collection. It is possible that they have been misplaced over the intervening six decades. A maker has not been linked to this mark.) Thus, multiple lines of evidence suggest Features A and B were built after the war had ended, not before it had begun. Moreover, the weighting of evidence toward a most intense period of occupation near the turn of the 18 th century, the approximate midpoint of the possible range of occupation, indicates the structures represent a second building episode some decades after the initial period of reconstruction (Figure 5.14). Building materials recovered from the Jireh Bull House Site aid in further imagining its several structures. Hundreds of fragments of broken window cases and panes indicate the house had at least two, if not three, windows. Glazed windows in the 17th century consisted of many small, diagonal panes of glass held into place by milled lead “cames” and then placed in a wooden frame sealed with lead wire. Glaziers sometimes carved their mark in reverse onto the wheel of the glazier's vice, which produced an embossed relief on the finished came, attesting that it did not exceed guild requirements by drawing the lead too thinly (Deetz 1993:110; Hume 1985). Approximately one third of the milled window leads recovered from the Jireh Bull House Site bear the mark, IOHN MASON OF BRISTOL 1671 FECIT Figure 185 Figure 5.13: Pipe stem and bowl assemblage from the Jireh Bull House Site in processing 186 Figure 5.14: Dating the Jireh Bull House Site This chart shows the date ranges for artifacts recovered from the Jireh Bull House Site. Gray areas indicate date ranges for artifact groups across all archaeological levels. 187 5.15). (Window leads manufactured by John Mason have also been recovered at Cocumscussoc, but without the portion with the date attached; these may be remnants of the original Richard Smith House.) The date on the lead, 1671, refers to the year when glazier, John Mason, fabricated the entire window, but it does not necessarily indicate when it was installed into the house. Windows shipped from England fully assembled after sitting in warehouses for an unknown duration. If the window was installed before King Philip's War, then the survival of its leads – lead has a characteristically low melting point – points to a minimally destructive experience during the war. More likely, given the dates of artifacts found at the site, it was installed sometime after the war had ended. The ratio of those inscribed with the maker's mark to those without any mark suggests there were at least three windows distributed between Features A and B. Glazed windows could be afforded by only the wealthiest colonists in New England—an oiled cloth or no windows at all served the rest —suggesting growing aspirations by its occupants during renovations to the site. When Jireh Bull died in 1684, his household probably consisted of his wife, Katherine, and the couple's younger sons, Ephraim and Ezekiel, aged 15 and 13, respectively. Their two elder sons, Jireh, Jr. and Henry, Jr., and their daughter, Mary, had already reached marriageable ages, and were probably no longer living there permanently, although their names do appear in land deeds in Kingstown. Jireh Bull, Jr. witnessed several deeds and participated in the division of the 500 wooded acres of “Jireth Bulls Farme” with his brothers “ (Washington 1921:183-184). In April 1687, Henry, Jr. purchased 100 acres across the 188 Figure 5.15: Photomicrograph of window lead (926-220) from the Bull Site The embossed date, 1671, as seen under 50x magnification. (Source: Kevin P. Smith) 189 highway from the farm, which he probably intended to run as a tenant farm from Newport (James N. Arnold 1894:160-161). But he died soon thereafter in 1691. Ephraim and Ezekiel purchased land from Jireh Jr. in the 1690s, and presumably moved out of their mother's house at that time. Eventually all of the Bull children except for Ephraim made homes in Newport instead of in Kingstown.2 In 1713, Katharine Bull died with a movable estate valued at £30 16s, which was not inconsiderable for a widow at that time. Among her possessions, her probate inventory lists a new “sute uper clothing” (£4 12s), “head linen and rest of the wearing apparel” (£7), “pewter and tin” (£1 14s), “iron and brass” (9s), and “wooden ware, etc.” (7s). Interestingly, the majority of the archaeological assemblage represents a period in time after Bull had already died. To contribute to this prosperity, between 1684 and 1713, it seems some additional labor force must have been present to sustain the farm, although the nature of servitude is unknown. Renovation at the Richard Smith, Jr. House Among the garrison houses in Narragansett Country, renovations were most extensive at the Richard Smith Jr.'s house. In his elderly years, Smith transformed his estate by constructing a new house identified on his probate inventory from 1692 as his “Great House” (Figure 5.16). This second house became the centerpiece of postwar additions to the estate. The date when construction commenced on Smith's Great House is uncertain, although it occurred after some time had passed from the end of King Philip's War. A land 190 deed entered by Smith's uncle, James Updike, in 1684 refers to land, “Lyeing to ye southward of my uncle, mr. Richard Smiths dwelling house formerly called ye Trading house” (Arnold 1894:162). The deed indicates the Great House was not then complete. Moreover, it reveals the trading house and Smith's dwelling house were, at that time, one and the same. In other words, the dwelling had been rebuilt to its prewar specifications, but was not the Great House. Hence, a reasonable date when construction began and finished is between 1685 and 1691. The arrangement of Smith's various houses and outbuildings is also uncertain. Some historians have suggested his great house was built atop his former dwelling house. Others believe it was built in a different location entirely. The term, great house, provides some clues. It appears sporadically in wills and probate inventories from the turn of the 18 th century in Rhode Island where the adjective, great, is most often used to distinguish between two houses owned by the same person. For example, Daniel Wilcox, who died in 1702, owned a house in Portsmouth and a great house in Tiverton. (Austin 2008:424). Similarly, Caleb Carr's will from 1693 differentiates between his great house where he and his wife lived, and his out-house then occupied by his son (Carr 1883:226). This pattern suggests the term also served to differentiate two houses for Smith. His probate inventory also includes a “stone house” on the site. Based on the similarity of this term to other garrison houses in Narragansett Country, I believe this structure represents the earlier, trading cum garrison house—that is, the structure rebuilt after King Philip's War. The precise location of the stone 191 Figure 5.16: Artist's reconstruction of Smith's “great house” This reconstruction by Clifford A. Renshaw (2000) shows his interpretation of how Smith's great house appeared in its finished state based on his probate inventory. (Source:http://www.smithscastle.org) 192 house has never been identified; it does not appear on any later maps and no foundation has ever been located. Archaeology of the yard of Smith's great house, known today as Smith's Castle, adds evidence to support major renovations during the early-17 th century. Mean-ceramic dating of individual levels in units excavated in the front yard show the area immediately around the modern foundation is earliest (Figure 5.17). The earliest levels in these units date to between 1700 and 1725. The mean-ceramic dates for levels grow steadily more recent in all directions when moving away from the house. One caveat to the spatial distribution of MCDs is that many of the earliest levels were found directly in front of the house on a berm leading toward Cocumscussoc Cove. In all cases, these were adjacent to contexts dated much later, and in some cases to the 19th century. This is one manifestation of a general lack of sealed, horizontal stratigraphy on the site caused by extensive landscaping during the 18 th and 19th centuries, which poses problems in dating particular areas of the site. Another attribute of the site revealed by this kind of analysis is the overall lack of 17 th-century levels on a site with so a rich a 17th-century history, particularly when compared to the Jireh Bull House Site. This absence supports the hypothesis that the great house was built in an area removed from the stone (garrison) house, now Smith's Castle. Smith's great house incorporated many elements of Elizabethan architectural fashion borrowed from Europe and reinterpreted through urban colonial centers in the Northeast. (Smith's particular influences were probably derived from places he had visited or lived: 193 Newport, Boston, and New York.) According to his probate inventory, the great house was two-and-a-half stories tall with a centrally located chimney. The first floor housed a kitchen, “great room,” or hall, with adjoining closet, and an attached “dairy room” in a lean-to behind the main house. A porch jutted out from the house to the left of the front door, but the probate does not list any goods in this room. On the second floor was located a hall chamber and closet, kitchen chamber and closet, porch chamber, and lean-to chamber. This last room was probably a small space with a steeply-tilting ceiling to create a salt-box shape used for storage of raw materials such as wool, as indicated by the probate. Garret spaces were located above the kitchen and hall chambers, as well as the porch under what was probably a gable extending perpendicularly from the pitched roof of the main house. Around 1740, Daniel Updike initiated Georgian renovations to the great house—removing the porch and gables, in addition to smaller interior alterations—rendering it much as it appears today (Woodward 1971:77). Richard Smith, Jr. was deeply concerned with positioning himself at the center of New England regional politics, divisive as they were. His great house hosted the commissioners of the Dominion of New England when they arrived in Narragansett Country, and effectively served as a seat of local governance. This position of power was reflected in his furnishings. Among the items listed in his probate inventory were a map of the world and a map of Boston. Both maps were found in the hall of the great house, along with a “sea bed” (hammock), “pair of colors” (a military commission), furniture, and “other 194 Figure 5.17: Earliest mean-ceramic date in each area of excavation at Cocumscussoc 195 things.” Books and “other things” were located in the closet to the hall. The assemblage of objects suggests a bare study created by a man with an interest in his place in an increasingly charted world. From the house's first story, perhaps even from the hammock bed, Smith could regard the coming and going of merchants ships, rather than the canoes observed by his father and he before the war, en route between Newport and Providence, and beyond. In this way, Richard Smith Jr. placed his newly constructed great house squarely in the center of New England, as interested parties converged on his home to parcel up the wilderness lands. This reordering of the landscape in the postwar decades reflected an emergent colonial sensibility grounded in exchange networks between Boston and New York and beyond. Renovations to garrison houses undertaken in the last decades of the 17 th century show striking variation in style across space, from north to south. Stone-enders became common in the northern portion of Narragansett Country on the outlying villages of Providence. Father south at Wickford, Richard Smith, Jr. adopted the timber-framed tradition to construct an Elizabethan house. This was also one of the first Georgian houses after its subsequent renovations in the 1740s. Farthest south at Kingstown, Jireh Bull (or his heirs) constructed a byre-house popular a generation prior. This variation can partially be explained by differential environments; Providence's villages had access to lime and therefore could make mortar to hold together stone works, while Smith's house was located at an interchange of commerce (and changing consumer trends). However, the construction of the Bull house, which was distant from known sources of limestone used to manufacture mortar, 196 is difficult to explain using this functional framework. Instead, proximity to existing Native settlements may have also been a factor in driving Bull to adopt a pattern of architecture that was more massive and defense-oriented than the other two vernacular styles. It was also the oldest and most recognizably English style of those adopted. Conclusion The landscape of physical destruction Nathaniel Saltonstall described to his kinsmen abroad in 1676 did not exist a half century later. Beginning in 1677, as soon as the Rhode Island colonists returned to Narragansett Country, they embarked on the most expansive and intensive building episode in the colony's architectural history. This period erased the physical reminders of King Philip's War indexed by burned down or otherwise damaged houses. In Chris Matthew's (2002:58) words, the architectural restoration of the postwar landscape made “it seem as if no time [had] passed at all.” This chapter has examined the two modes involved in the architectural restoration of fortified houses in the interest of identifying colonists' changing vision for the present and future particularly with respect to Native peoples. The first process, reconstruction, included removing the vestiges of military fortifications and using the residues of former houses to make them appear as they had before the conflict. The second process, renovation, involved included extending rooms, expanding structures, and building entirely new structures to create more impressive architectural complexes to revise the original appearance of these houses. These two phases of 197 rebuilding revised, in architectural terms, the devastating history of King Philip's War by first righting and then further diminishing the violence perpetrated against colonial dwelling houses. Drawing on social theory concerning the relationship between the modification of built environments and social stress, this chapter has argued that architectural modifications were integral to the rehabilitation of colonial communities in the aftermath of conflict. They not only restored houses to their prewar appearance, but also mended the perceived social disorder of Narragansett Country. Although rebuilding attempted to assuage ongoing anxieties about the outcome of the war, it was not completely successful. Renovation drew on multiple local and regional influences, some conservative others progressive, suggesting unresolved anxieties over the recent past and competing visions for the future of the built environment in postwar Narragansett Country and its Native inhabitants. 198 Notes to Chapter 5 1 The brick wall could have been constructed where the wooden palisade had been, thereby eliminating the traces of the former wall, although this seems unlikely. I interpret Potter's notes as a reflection of the increased interest individuals were then paying to local histories, making connections between places and historical events, filling in missing connections between past and present as necessary. 2 Genealogical sources disagree on the name of Jireh Bull's wife. Austin (2008) suggests it was Katharine (d. 1713) based on a probate inventory for a Katharine Bull who cannot be placed in a known genealogy. By contrast, Torrey (1985:116) names her Elizabeth, but he does not identify a source for the information. It is possible Jireh Bull had two wives: first Elizabeth, second Katharine. The exact dates when Jireh Bull's elder sons and daughters married is unknown. Jireh Bull, Jr. married before 1682 and Henry Bull before 1687 (Torrey 1985:116). Torry (1985:166) misidentifies Henry Bull as the father of Mary Bull, but specifies a date or ca. 1685 for her wedding to James Coggeshall. Insofar as they married in Newport, it is possible the two met when Jireh Bull relocated his family there during King Philip's War. She may not have moved back to Narragansett Country afterward, and may have married at an earlier date. 199 CHAPTER 6 FRAGMENTS OF NATIVE LIVES Introduction In the years after King Philip's War, Anglo Americans living in Rhode Island commonly asserted that the Narragansett Indians survivors—those not killed during the war or sold into slavery in the years after (see DeLucia 2012)—had either vanished or acculturated entirely to European colonial life ways. “These Narragansets do now in a manner cease to be a people, the few, if any, remaining in the Colony, being either scattered about where the English will employ them, or sheltered under the successors of Ninigret,” preached Rev. John Callender (1729:132-133), minister of the First Baptist Church of Newport in 1729. Callender's narrative, which is widely considered the first official history of the colony of Rhode Island, served to justify the violent domination of the Narragansetts during the conflict as part of providential march of civilization (see also Mandell 2004; Rubertone 2008). Of course, Callendar's statement indicates Narragansetts persisted in marginal spaces and found employment as farm laborers into the 18th century. Numerous studies drawing heavily on Narragansett Indian oral history and ethnohistory demonstrate that Indians remained on their ancestral homeland and maintained connections to their cultural identity despite colonial domination (e.g., Calloway 2005; Den Ouden 2005; 200 Herndon 2001; Herndon and Sekatau 1997; Newell 2007; Mandell 1998). However, tracing Native peoples to particular colonial sites in Narragansett Country during the late-17 th and early-18th century is difficult using the thin documentary record. Archaeology of Euro- colonial sites in this spatial and temporal context holds the power to fill in this gap in knowledge. Moreover, material evidence provides a perspective on undocumented processes of reengagement between English colonists and Narragansett Indians in the war's aftermath. Through a reanalysis of previously excavated artifacts from two garrison house sites in Narragansett Country, this chapter investigates the Native American presence and cultural persistence in the aftermath of King Philip's War. After providing a thumbnail sketch of the excavation at the the Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site (RI-375) and the Jireh Bull House Site (RI-926), the archaeological components of the Richard Smith, Jr. and Jireh Bull houses, it compares several groups of artifacts found within the collections that are diagnostic of Native American cultural practices. First, it studies stone tools and associated lithic artifacts gathered from the sites. Second, it examines gunflints from both sites and focuses on reuse of this lithic material. Third, it investigates worked (or “chipped”) glass tools made from European wine bottle glass found within these assemblages. The chapter finds evidence for the curation of stone tools on these sites, the reworking and reuse of European gunflints, and the use of broken wine bottles as scraping and cutting tools. Based on these findings, this chapter argues that Native Americans were present at the two fortified house sites in the late- 201 17th through mid-18th century. During the period of reconstruction and renovation at garrison house sites, Native peoples maintained old and developed new cultural practices. These “traditional” artifacts do not represent the full extent of indigenous material cultural practices on these sites (e.g. Silliman 2010), but provide empirical evidence useful in reconsidering the interpretation of the imported European objects in a multicultural context of postwar rehabilitation. Archaeology of Garrison Houses in Narragansett Country Jireh Bull House Site The Jireh Bull House Site (RI-926) is a 0.74-acre archaeological site in South Kingstown, Rhode Island. The archaeological site was identified in 1917 by three antiquarians active in the Society for Colonial Wars and the Rhode Island Historical Society. The workmen—none of whom were trained in archaeology—unearthed the foundations three structures, and recovered several thousand artifacts. They further suggested the original superstructure had fallen in on itself and sealed the artifacts inside, potentially in situ (see Chapter 5). However, the workmen did not record any provenience information where artifacts were found, much to the chagrin of the principal director of the research, Norman Isham (see Isham 1918). A professor of architecture at the Rhode Island School of Design, as well as an avocational historian and archaeologist, Isham had a prevailing interest in the vernacular architecture of colonial New England, particularly in Rhode Island and 202 Connecticut (e.g., Isham and Brown 1895). In addition to illuminating the Indian raid in December 1675, Isham had hoped the location of particular artifacts would help him to identify the sequence of construction at the site. Isham did create a scaled draft of the architectural remains of the site, and saved the artifacts for later study, which he hoped would confirm the site's involvement in King Philip's War (Isham 1918). In 1922, the landowner donated the 0.7-acres surrounding the site to the Rhode Island Historical Society on account of its historical significance (Figure 6.1). During the late-19th and early-20th centuries, the study of colonial material culture was in its infancy. At that time, fragments of ceramics, glass, and nails excavated from historic sites were treated similarly to historical documents and without an interest in analyzing their contextual meanings. Hence, Isham focused on the most easily identifiable artifacts, among them a silver bodkin with the initials, M B. Isham proposed these initials probably stood for Mary Bull, either the daughter of Jireh Bull or the wife of Ephraim Bull, Mary (Coggeshall) Bull. The workmen had also found a 1652 Pine Tree Shilling, which confirmed the date of the site. They also recovered a snapheunce firing mechanism and a stone pestle, which Isham believed was an axe, which confirmed his hypothesis that the site was a place of King Philip's War—Indian attack and colonial defense. Yet, Isham recognized that the site had also been rebuilt, as suggested by historical documents indicating Jireh Bull had returned to Kingstown following the conflict. He was concerned about the refinement of the domestic ceramics, however, which appeared to date to the early-18th century, long after 203 Figure 6.1: Commemorative marker near the Jireh Bull House Site 204 Bull had died. Struggling to reconcile these various strands of evidence, Isham reasoned the site had been quarried for building stone at a later date, at which time these artifacts had been deposited. While the artifacts remained in Isham's personal collection, some of them were shown and studied at the Rhode Island Historical Society, and an associate donated them to the museum in the 1960s, although some artifacts, particularly the Pine Tree Shilling, did not migrate with the collection. While the artifacts went on display at the RIHS over the next decades, as shown by paper glued to the back of some ceramic sherds, the site and collection languished until 1981. That year, Stephen Mrozowski, then a graduate student at Brown University, taught an archaeological field methods course at the site. The goals of the short excavation were two- fold: first, to test the back-dirt pile left by the workmen in 1917 for uncollected artifacts, and second, to examine areas around the house foundations for additional cultural material. Excavation of the back-dirt pile showed the majority of historical artifacts, but none of the abundant faunal materials, had been collected during the earlier excavation. Further examination of the house lot revealed intact archaeological contexts in some areas around the house: a midden to the north of Feature A and root cellar to the south of Feature A. The limited scope of excavations make these identifications only provisional, however. On the basis of the 1981 excavations, the Rhode Island Historical Society successfully nominated the site to the National Register of Historic Places Inventory, designated “RI-926” by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission. Following Norman Isham's 205 original interpretation of the site, it was nominated on the basis of its military history. Reviews of the preliminary nomination form show some archaeologists questioned whether the site might also have a Native American component, a subject which was not broached in either of the two excavations. In 1987, another graduate student at Brown, Elizabeth Reid (1987), designed a Master's research project to conduct additional archaeological testing on the site. Her proposal was originally approved by the RIHS, but permission was later rescinded when the excavation became entangled with larger issues of repatriation between the RIHS and the Narragansett Indian Tribe. One archaeologist who had visited the site in 1981, described the period of disagreement to me as “a big misunderstanding.” Thus, Reid instead conducted a partial analysis of the faunal and artifact collection for evidence of frontier patterns revealed through food and material culture. Her findings were only preliminary, but indicated Jireh Bull made a long-term investment in his houses, land, and livestock toward individual prosperity and community stability (Reid 1987:71). While Reid did not directly refute Isham's initial interpretation of the site, her work showed little evidence of a military occupation of violent confrontation between colonists and Narragansett Indians. Nonetheless, foregoing interpretation of the site suggests the “[r]emains of foundation walls and other deposits… document English garrison life on the Narragansett frontier during King Philip’s War.” (Grumet 1995:135). In the autumn of 2009, I conducted a preliminary survey of the artifact assemblage 206 from the Jireh Bull House Site at the John Brown House Museum owned and operated by the Rhode Island Historical Society in Providence, Rhode Island. At that time, my aim was to identify whether there might be evidence of Native American material culture contained within the collection. My initial review identified a broken pestle and red, terra cotta tobacco pipe stems potentially interpretable as evidence of indigenous cultural activity. After conducting exhaustive review of historical documents related to the site and other garrison houses, I returned to the collections storage to compile a list of artifacts in the collection—a complete list of artifacts collected in 1917 was never made—in preparation for a loan of artifacts for further analysis. In December 2010, the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology reached an short-term loan agreement with the Rhode Island Historical Society, and the collection was transported to the Circumpolar Archaeological Laboratory at the Collections Research Center in Bristol, Rhode Island. At that time, the artifact assemblage was contained in four Hollinger boxes—two for each year of excavation—within which were various smaller, non-archival boxes containing different assortments of artifacts. Artifacts recovered in 1917 were separated by material type (e.g., glass, ceramics, metals), and artifacts recovered in 1981 were separated by archaeological context (i.e., excavation unit and level). In the lab, I brought these two disparate collections together in a single catalog and organized artifacts by material type and variety, while preserving the provenience information gathered during the 1981 excavation. To facilitate this goal, I cataloged each artifact with a unique number, beginning with “926- 207 1” (with “926” designating the state site number). During analysis, I weighed each artifact, rehoused it in a 4-mil polyethylene storage bag, and labeled the bag with the artifact number. I maintained a computer database with the catalog number and provenience information, where available, and fields for various kinds of analytical data, such as ceramic type and pipe stem bore diameter. Organic and faunal materials, such as seeds, wood, charcoal, bone, antler, and shell were not analyzed, and are not described here. For the purposes of artifact counts and masses, however, all artifact types were counted and weighed, and are included in tables and listed in the appendix. Upon completing the laboratory analysis, I packed the artifacts by material type, except for a bag of diagnostic “small finds,” and restored all of the artifacts for the original four Hollinger boxes for long-term storage and curation at the Rhode Island Historical Society. The collection was returned in September 2012. Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site The Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site (RI-375) is situated on a 23-acre historic site, known popularly as Cocumscussoc, in North Kingstown, Rhode Island (see Dunay et al. 2003; Rubertone 2009a). The site is centered around Smith's Castle, a two-and-a-half-story wooden structure, which is believed to include portions of the “great house” built by Richard Smith, Jr. during the 1680s (Figure 6.2). However, the house appears much as it did during the mid-18th century after a period of extensive renovation. During the house's “Georgianization,” Daniel Updike, a descendant of Smith's, removed the gables and porch, 208 Figure 6.2: Painting of Smith's Castle showing 19th-century modifications (Source: Whitefield 1882:21) 209 which are identified in Smith's probate inventory, sometime in the 1720s to update its style. A hipped roof and porch were added by later owners during the 19 th century, but these, too, were torn down by the 20th century. Yet, large quarried blocks brought in as foundation and stepping stones for the porch remain in situ in the front and sides of the house. Since 1949, the house and surrounding historic site have been owned by the Smith's Castle Association, a private historic preservation society, which opens Smith's Castle seasonally as an historic house museum. In its early years, the society extensively renovated the property by peeling away layers of chimney bricks to expose the earliest chimney and adding a kitchen garden at the side of the house. These features remain today as testament to the Colonial Revival of the mid-20th century. In contrast to the Jireh Bull House Site, the Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site has long been remembered for its role first as a trading post set up by Roger Williams in 1636 and then as the location of a garrison during King Philip's War. During the 19 th century, the site, which represents a portion of the what was then known as first the Babbit and then the Fox farms, was well-known among avocational collectors for its Indian artifacts. In 1879 and 1880, pot hunters excavating an unknown area of the Babbit farm discovered and exhumed a Native American burial containing a number of 17th-century trade goods—a brass kettle, tin-enameled delftware, and a glass bottle—which are now in the collections of the Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology awaiting repatriation to the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Gentis, personal communication; Rubertone 2009a). Also in 1879, antiquarians 210 excavated the supposed site of the “Great Grave” containing the remains of the 40 soldiers who died following the Great Swamp Fight. According to an earlier 19 th-century oral tradition, the grave had been marked by the “'Grave Apple Tree,' [which] grew upon the grave, and was broken off in the September gale of 1815 (W. Updike 1842:35). The excavators dug the spot where the tree was said to have been located, but they discovered only a “stratum of black material in the trench” (Isham 1914: 80; see also Dunay et al. 2003:18). They reconciled the discrepancy between their expectations and their observations by arguing the grave must have been so shallow that its organic and inorganic components had long since eroded (Isham 1914:80). During the excavation, someone scratched “[s]ome letters” into the large boulder at the supposed site (Isham 1914:80), but they did not last for long; they can no longer be located. When the Cocumscussoc Association formed to preserve and interpret Smith's Castle, the house was widely believed to be the original trading post erected by Roger Williams in 1636 and then used as a garrison during King Philip's War. In 1972 and 1973, archaeologists from the University of Rhode Island conducted a small-scale extrusive survey of the front lawn of Smith's Castle, the area which would later become the archaeological site, to evaluate the house's age and connection to trade (Figure 6.3). These excavations unearthed fragments of 17th-century Bellarmine jugs and complete arrowheads, which supported, at least conditionally, an early date of colonial occupation and the presence of Narragansett Indians. In 1989, Patricia Rubertone of Brown University secured the artifacts 211 Figure 6.3: Plan of archaeological investigations at Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site Excavation units and shovel test pits are shown true to size (purple). 212 and research notes from the earlier excavation and began a larger and more systematic survey conducted from 1989 to 1994 (Rubertone and Fitts 1990, 1991; Rubertone and Taylor 1992). Based on these surveys, the site was successfully nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and then designated a National Historic Landmark. Additional excavations conducted under the purview of cultural resource management took place in 1990 and 2007 (New England Archaeological Resources 1990; Clements 2008). Most recently, in April and May 2012, I conducted archaeological reconnaissance in an area outside the formal archaeological site to identify the remains of an 18 th- and 19th-century barn, which unearthed architectural residues and a single button dating from 1790 to 1810. Nearly all artifacts from the site are curated in the Giddings Archaeological Laboratory at Brown University where artifacts of similar type, such as ceramics and pipe stems, are grouped together for comparative study. Diagnostic artifacts—those particularly well-suited to archaeological analysis, such as trade beads, thimbles, and pins—were designated “small finds” and conserved in sealed environments with humidity appropriate for the materials within. The artifact collection contains a substantial assemblage of early- to mid-17th-century artifacts, such as Bellarmine jug handles and trade beads. However, many of the earliest-manufactured artifacts appeared in highly disturbed contexts in the front yard area of the house lot dating to a period of intense landscaping activity coinciding with Georgian renovations. Hence, the majority of studies on the assemblage have focused on artifacts from the plantation period (Frank 2006; Hoover 2006; Ryzewski 2006). 213 My work with the artifact collection from the Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site consisted of two projects: first, developing comprehensive spatial and relational databases of the entire site and, second, a focused analysis of “knapped” artifacts in the collection. First, I created a Geographic Information System (GIS) of the site containing all shovel test pits and excavation units to scale, as well as landscape features. Second, I designed and developed a relational database of all 50,000 artifacts and associated provenience information from original catalog sheets from 1972 to 2007. In the relational database, I calculated the mean- ceramic date (after South 1977) and pipe-bore-diameter date (after Heighton and Deagan 1971) for each excavation level. Third, I projected these data spatially to visualize the associations between contexts. This approach revealed that contexts near to the house date to between 1700 and 1725, and increase with greater distance from the house. However, scattered among the 18th-century contexts are several late-17 th century contexts, as well as 19th-century contexts. Finally, I reanalyzed the lithic and “lithic-like” artifacts from the site— those within the artifact collection and an additional assemblage located in the archives of the Cocumscussoc Association annex building found in the walls of Smith's Castle more than 50 years ago. Lithic and “Lithic-Like” Tools On colonial period sites worldwide, the presence of indigenous peoples is identified archaeologically through the discovery of “traditional” artifacts, primarily stone tools, found 214 in association with imported, European colonial artifacts. While these mixed assemblages demonstrate the “entangled” nature of colonial encounters (e.g., Hodder 2012; Martindale 2009; N. Thomas 1991; Turgeon 1997), they also present archaeologists with an interpretive challenge of disentangling Native from traditional, European from colonial. Archaeologies of colonialism have repeatedly demonstrated that native peoples used artifacts in ways that are largely indistinguishable from their colonial counterparts—not to mention other ethnic groups, particularly Africans and creole peoples—but rich with meaning in indigenous cultures (for recent variations on this theme, see, e.g., Cobb and DePratter 2012; Howey 2011; Ives 2011; Silliman 2009, 2010). In other words, an artifact's location of production is a poor indicator of peoples' cultural identity on European-colonial sites. Some archaeologists have argued that the spatial distribution of European colonial artifacts on Native American sites might reveal a patterns consistent with longstanding indigenous traditions (Silliman 2009, 2010), although few studies have evaluated this hypothesis (e.g., Mrozowski et al. 2009). However, the fortified houses in Narragansett Country are both thinly documented and poorly stratified; without stone tools—the diagnostic signature of indigenous cultural practices—placing Natives on the sites is difficult to substantiate archaeologically. The assemblage of artifacts from Cocumscussoc includes a small group of lithics: primarily quartz debitage with a handful of finished tools. The identification of lithic artifacts at Cocumscussoc is challenging because the sandy soil on the site is full of small quartz pebbles which often resemble chipping debris, but are more likely a natural 215 occurrence on this coastal site. The stratigraphy of the site is also highly disturbed such that the stone tools have often been thought to represent an earlier phase or phases of a multi- component site subsequently plowed up into historic materials. The spatial distribution of lithic debitage reveals a high concentration in an area north of Smith's Castle that used to be an old driveway. Archaeologists also found a smaller number of artifacts interpreted as cores, scrapers, and drills across the site (Bright-Fishbein 2007). However, these were almost all made from quartz which often breaks under natural conditions into “pseudo-tools.” Thus, some, though probably not all, of these lithic artifacts are manifestations of past cultural behavior. Surprisingly, given its importance in the Narragansett Indian homeland (cf. Sullivan n.d.), archaeologists have recovered only a handful of finished tools during four decades of excavations at Cocucumscussoc: five projectile points and two knives. These tools were probably manufactured over several millennia from the Late Archaic to the Middle Woodland periods (ca. 4,000 BC-1000 AD). Despite their prehistoric manufacture, archaeologists recovered all from colonial period deposits, primarily fill, dating to the 18 th and 19th centuries. The four projectile points were found in fill deposits dated, when possible, to the mid-18th century (Figure 6.4, c-d). The most easily identifiable is a large, stemmed, corner- notched projectile point with a straight base and slightly convex sides (#73-449). This combination of attributes presents two possible classifications—Genesee or Fox Creek Stemmed (see Fowler 1991:18)—which are nearly identical in morphology, but represent the 216 Transitional Archaic and Middle Woodland, respectively. It is probably of the latter type because it has a slightly shorter length than the Gennesee point and more curved sides. Archaeologists found the point in a the deepest layer of a stratified fill deposit (T10WX-3) with a MCD of 1734. A small, pentagonal point with a straight base (#72-525) was found in the first layer of another deposit dating to the 1740s (T3-1). It can be classified as a Jack's Reef Pentagonal type, also from the Middle Woodland period, although one side of the point has been thoroughly ground away through reuse as a scraper. Archaeologists found a morphologically similar point (#73-800)—corner-notched and diamond-shaped—in the second layer of (T20-2) fill with an MCD of 1750. It is possibly a Rossville Diamond-type from the Early Woodland period, although its heavy retouch presents the possibility it may be a broken and reused Stark-type point from the Archaic period. A fourth projectile point made from quartz—the only example using this material—has a transverse breakage above the stem which precludes potential classification. It was also found in a deep layer of fill (C- 428-6) which was absent of ceramics and contained too few pipe stems to provide a reliable date. The group of lithic tools also includes two knives (Figure 6.4, a-b), which can be differentiated from projectile points based on their greater length and less refined knapping. One of the knives (C-513-WC), which was made from reddish-brown felsite, was discovered when cleaning the wall of a unit. Hence, its original layer—and the date of the layer—is unknown. The second (C-32-2) knife, made from banded gray-green rhyolite, was found 217 Figure 6.4: Lithic Tools from Smith's Castle 218 Figure 6.5: Additional lithics from Cocumscussoc 219 Figure 6.6: Artifact assemblage found in walls of Smith's Castle during renovations The lithic blade can be seen in bottom left corner of the display case. 220 near the surface in a shovel test pit (STP 32), which was later expanded into an excavation unit (EU 401). The context within the STP had a MCD of 1791 and the same level in the EU had a MCD of 1805. The two knives are morphologically similar; both can be categorized as Square Based or Stemless-type (Fowler 1991:34). This type is characteristic of Laurentian assemblages of the Late Archaic, although this temporal and cultural relationship is predicated on their discovery in large caches of projectile points that are different than those found at Cocumscussoc (Fowler 1991). Neither artifact shows substantial evidence of retouch. As Dincauze (1976:32, 71) notes of the Neville Site in New Hampshire, knives of this type may actually be preforms intended for further lithic reduction, although those in her sample were made from different materials. This may indeed be the case for these roughly worked blades. However, both knives show signs of reuse at the tip and along the sides indicating some use prior to deposition. Although the knives are made from different materials, both likely came from the volcanic lithic source areas in what is now Massachusetts (Ritchie 2002). A final finished stone tool from the site was found inside the walls of Smith's Castle when the building was first renovated into a house museum (Figure 6.5, b). It is a long blade-shaped tool made from a dark gray, fine-grained silicate. The tool is well-manufactured with regular, evenly-sized tool marks and and symmetrical, curvilinear edges. The point and the base are approximately the same width, although the base is slightly indented. The point is slightly blunt and may have been ground down, but no part of the blade shows any 221 evidence of retouch. Tools of this size and shape are rare in southern New England (Fowler 1991), and usually found in the context of prehistoric burials such that they are named “ceremonial blades.” Although the original context is unknown, it was recovered in association with a number of historic artifacts: a leather-bound spelling book, several partial ox shoes, a two-tined fork, a wrought-iron nail, a partial shoe buckle, and several unidentified tools (Figure 6.6). The assemblage, a veritable time capsule now displayed in a shadow box, likely dates to the early- to mid-18th century based on the contents of the book, which is similar in type and words to spelling books published in London in the last decade of the 17th century (e.g., Browne 1692), and the morphology of the fork. The nature and location of the assemblage raises many questions deserving further research, especially given findings of dissimilar objects placed under the floorboards of slave-occupied houses in the Mid-Atlantic region of a slightly later date (e.g., Ruppel et al. 2003); were the artifacts placed purposefully and, if so, by whom and for what ends? At this preliminary stage, the cache offers unequivocal evidence that Native American artifacts were picked up from sites around Smith's Castle and curated within its walls sometime during the early-18 th century. Given the dates of the contexts in which the other finished tools were recovered, they, too, may have been brought to the site from nearby, rather than turned up from deeper subsoil. Even more difficult to interpret is a small obsidian core (73-644) found at Cocumscussoc (Figure 6.5, a). It bears evidence of lithic reduction and use as a sharpening stone, as revealed by a deeply incised line running across one flat surface of the rock creating 222 a heart-shaped profile. Use-wear scars run parallel to the line in the groove. The rock is smooth and glassy and the cortex can be seen on several faces where flakes were not removed. The lithic identification was confirmed by Dr. John Cherry (personal communication), an expert on obsidian trade in the ancient Mediterranean. Although one of the best performing and most highly valued raw materials worldwide, obsidian is not found in geological formations in the Northeast. The closest sources of obsidian are in the Rocky Mountains. Nonetheless, obsidian occasionally surfaces in New England (William Simmons, personal communication), but nearly always accompanied by little or no provenience information. Archaeologists are currently split in their interpretation of these finds; some believe it provides evidence of super-long-distance transport in prehistory (Dillian et al. 2007, 2010), while others argue it results from inadvertent (or even purposeful) mixing of artifacts collected in the American West with those in the East (Boulanger et al. 2007). The obsidian from Cocumscussoc has not yet been submitted to chemical analysis to determine its source, but it was found in a partially-stratified fill deposit with a MCD of 1796. With the benefit of this contextual information, there can be little doubt it was found at the archaeological site. But where did it come from, who brought it there, and when? A preliminary hypothesis is that it came to the site as ballast based on the date and location of the context. Many ballast stones can be found along the shoreline around the location of the “landing” identified on the 1802 plat map (Figure 5.5; Frank Boffi, personal communication). Someone may have worked the artifact either prior to or after it was deposited on the landing. 223 Archaeologists may just be beginning to understand how much they do not know about the prehistoric components of the Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site. During the program of public archaeology I directed at Smith's Castle in April and May 2012, a neighbor of the museum approached me to see what we had found. To illustrate the 18th- century layout of the site, I pulled from my pocket an aerial photo with an historical map overlaid. She pointed out the location of her own house, a short distance north of the property, and then related to me that workers moving her septic system away from the coastline had unearthed and (unbeknownst to her) kept numerous Native American artifacts. In contrast to the paucity of finished stone tools at Cocumscussoc, her property appears to hold a previously unidentified concentration of these artifacts so large that it was discovered during routine maintenance. Although the extent of the site and its relation to Smith's Castle is as yet unknown, its presence suggests the original Narragansett occupation of the landscape and subsequent contact-period sites may also be located north of where Smith's Castle now stands. This would explain why so few finished tools were found at Cocumscussoc, and further suggests those that did appear were curated and brought to the site long after their original manufacture. At the Jireh Bull House Site, archaeologists found a small number of lithic and “lithic-like” artifacts, including a broken pestle, lithic debitage, and a small piece of metallic slag. The pestle is made from arkose sandstone, a variety of sedimentary rock common to the Tower Hill area and much of Narragansett Country (Figure 6.7). The unbroken end of the 224 pestle shows evidence of wear from grinding against a mortar. The original date of manufacture is uncertain based on morphological characteristics. After it was broken, someone reused it as a sharpening stone. Several engraved lines run parallel to the length of the pestle, suggestive of the edge of a metal tool, while one side has been flattened and burnished. Archaeologists found the pestle within the house foundations in 1917 (and incorrectly identified it as an axe used in the 1675 raid). The provenience, however poor, combined with the pattern of wear suggest on the pestle suggest it is contemporaneous to other artifacts found within the house structure dating to the end of the 17 th century. There can be little doubt this was an artifact of original Narragansett manufacture, although it does not necessarily indicate the presence of Native peoples in the home; it might as easily have been picked up and brought to the site. Furthermore, colonists, used pestles as well, as evidenced by Ephraim Bull's probate inventory. Yet, in this case, the scars left on the artifact suggest it is more closely related to those pertaining to agricultural tools, the purview of farm laborers, than to food preparation. Evidence of lithic production at the site is manifest through the recovery of chipping debris. Quartz debitage is most numerous type of raw material recovered, but its identification as a byproduct of lithic reduction—and therefore evidence of Native peoples— is ambiguous because the house foundations were built from dressed quartz rocks, the production of which would have left similar, if not identical, traces to stone tool manufacture. Six thin flakes from a single, nearly complete graphite nodule are not associated 225 Figure 6.7: Broken and reused pestle found at Jireh Bull House Site (926-416) 226 Figure 6.8: Rhyolite flake from the Jireh Bull House Site 227 with the architectural remains. Archaeologists found the graphite in the third level of the unit placed in the site midden (EU-4-3) dated to between 1697 ad 1738. Graphite cannot be found on to the site, although a major lithic source, the Cojoot Mine, is located nearby. (Abundant graphite sources, which were mined in the 19 th and early-20th century were also located at Fenners Ledge and Sockanosset in Cranston [Miller 1972].) At the site, the flakes may have been produced naturally through frost heaves of water seepage into the laminated layers of the nodule. However, I was unable to refit the pieces indicating some portion has been removed. The cultural association of the series of flakes is also uncertain; graphite was used widely by Natives as paint stones and also identified as a potential source of mineral wealth by colonists. A single flake of rhyolite, which also does not occur in the site boundary, shows the most conclusive evidence of knapping characteristic of lithic reduction (Figure 6.8). However, it was recovered in 1981 from the backdirt left from 1917, rendering its original location unknown. The collections of stone tools and associated debitage from the Cocumscussoc and Jireh Bull sites are small, but help to identify both sites as Native places, as well as colonial. The assemblage of finished tools is larger, more diagnostic, and temporally extensive at Cocumscussoc than at the Bull Site, with a time depth extending into the Archaic period. Although it lacks this time depth, the Jireh Bull Site provides evidence, first, of the reuse of a previously broken stone pestle and, second, a spatial association between the tool and debitage and the house foundations. Nonetheless, the provenience information from the 228 house foundation is frustratingly limited; ascertaining exactly where and in what strata the pestle was found would greatly benefit the site interpretation. At both sites, the groups of stone tools, debitage, and associated artifacts are difficult to identify and interpret because they come from highly disturbed soils. However, both assemblages demonstrate the curation of particularly important stones—whether bringing finished tools inside the house or picking up particularly attractive slag. Hence, these groups provide a limited, but essential first step to widen the scope of Native cultural practices, or colonists' reuse of Indian artifacts, in some cases, at the sites in the 17th and 18th centuries. Gunflints Gunflints are among the most numerous lithic artifacts recovered from colonial sites worldwide. Archaeologists find them in particular abundance on military sites, occasionally in caches to be used when need arose (e.g., Faulkner 1986; Hamilton and Emery 1988; Honerkamp and Harris 2005; Stephenson et al. 2007). They represented an essential component of the “spark ignition system” of snaphaunce and flintlock firearms (see Stevenson et al. 2007). In flintlock guns, gunflints were commonly seated in a fold of leather, then placed in the cock, and the release of the trigger sent the gunflint forward to strike the frizzen and ignite the powder, thereby firing the shot. (see Kenmotsu 1990). Workers at chalk quarries across Europe produced gunflints from chert nodules in abundance from the 16th century through the 19th century, particularly in England, France, and the Netherlands 229 (Stevenson et al. 2007). A skilled knapper produced 3,000 to 4,000 finished flints a day (Whittaker 2001). The method of manufacturing gunflints changed over the centuries of production (for a recent review of this process, see Ballin 2012). Archaeologists have long presumed that the combination of material color and gunflint shape is a reliable indicator of the raw material source and the approximate date of manufacture (e.g., De Lotbiniere 1977, 1980, 1984); however, archaeological finds have proved this assumption tenuous, at best, for the longest-used varieties (Ballin 2012; Luedtke 1999; Stevenson et al. 2007; cf. Whittaker 2001). Finished gunflints were then shipped to colonies around the world. Traders found these goods particularly valuable to native peoples who owned firearms previously (see Hamilton 1960, 1962, 1968, 1980). Native peoples also crafted gunflints imitating European forms using local chert sources and longstanding knapping technique (e.g., Blanchette 1975; Kent 1983; Whitthoft 1966) Archaeologists unearthed 43 gunflints and gunflint fragments at Cocumscussoc in stratified fill deposits dating primarily to between the late-18 th and mid-19th centuries (Figure 6.9). The shape of six complete and mostly complete gunflints could be identified. These artifacts fell into three types (see Ballin 2012): three D-shaped gunspalls, often called “Dutch;” one square gunspalls; and two D-shaped blade gunflints with two dorsal arrises, often called “French.” D-shaped gunspalls were made from both gray and brown (“blond”) chert, while D-shaped blade gunflints were made from only gray chert. Archaeologists did not find any “English” (square gunflints with a single arrise) or “Native” (bifacially worked 230 [cf. Blanchette 1975]) gunflints at the site. The largest group of seven gunflints was found in three consecutive levels of a single unit (C-526) with MCDs dating to between 1588 and 1811. Archaeologists also discovered groups of four gunflint fragments each in nonconsecutive levels of two units (C-524 and C-539), the first of which could be dated to 1803 and 1804. Groups of three gunflint fragments each were found in two other units (C- 517 and C-523) dated using pipe stem bore diameters to 1668 and 1689, respectively.1 This first unit produced the most complete gunflints in the collection—both D-shaped spall and D-shaped blade types. Archaeologists have long known that Natives manufactured their own gun flints from local chert sources according to longstanding lithic traditions. During the 19th and early- 20th centuries, archaeologists in the Hudson River Valley frequently discovered gun flints in Native American burials. The use of local Onondaga chert and highly knapped surface, which imitated the shape of imported flints, but used a knapped technique, belied their indigenous manufacture. Dozens of bifacially manufactured gun flints, potentially made by Native Americans, were found at the R. M. Site in Plymouth, Massachusetts (Chartier 2002), but none were found at either the Cocumscussoc or the Jireh Bull House Sites. However, one tiny, unifacial, chert point from Cocumscussoc, which is probably Onodaga chert based on color and texture, may be a reworked, Native-manufactured gun spall (C- 506-4 [#28]; Figure 6.10, b). Morphologically, the point most closely resembles a Levanna triangle, a type of small, triangular projectile point manufactured in the Northeast from the 231 Figure 6.9: Gunflints from Cocumscussoc Gray areas show areas affected by heat treatment. 232 Late Woodland period (1000-1500 AD) through European colonization (Fowler 1991). However, it deviates significantly from the ideal type because of its small scale—its base was narrower than Levanna triangles, which generally measure more than 31.75 mm (1.25 in)— and unifacial production. The point it most striking for its large thickness relative to its length and width, which is similar in proportion to the dorsal arrise of a European- manufactured spall. Thus, I suggest it was originally a Native-manufactured gun spall that was then reworked into a projectile point, albeit one that could not have been hafted, using longstanding flint-knapping methods and point styles. The lithic assemblage from Cocumscussoc reveals further evidence of the Native reuse of European-manufactured gun flints, strong evidence that, in the aftermath of the war, Natives picked up fired gunflints and modified them according to longstanding litihc practices. Many of the largest gunflint fragments are heat-treated as evidenced by light gray areas on the exterior surfaces of the chert. Lithic modification using fire was commonly practiced across Native New England as a way of increasing the mechanical properties of rocks prior to knapping (Kevin McBride, personal communication). Some of these same fragments, which were probably originally either Early Wedge or D-shaped spall types, also show evidence of additional knapping and use wear along their edges (Figure 6.10, a, c). One extensively modified, gray spall (C-513-4) has a large area on its ventral surface where a flake has been removed. It was recovered them a fill deposit dated using ceramics to 1804. (No pipe stems were recovered from this level.) A second, poorly-formed and partially-broken 233 gunflint (73-557) with substantial evidence of scraping activity was discovered in a level dated by ceramics to 1750. Its leading edge has been entirely worn away by use-wear, and the edges to the left and right of the leading edge are also extensively worn, particularly one area along the right side recognizable as a semi-circular indentation. In its discarded state, this artifact appears similar to discoidal scrapers commonly found in association with other lithic tools on prehistoric Native American sites in the Northeast (e.g., Fowler 1991:39). However, in contrast to the other modified gunflint, it does not show any evidence of sharpening— that is, it is more expedient than the other. Taken together, these artifacts prove Natives used spent chert gunflints as a raw lithic source sometime prior to the 19 th century, although their recovery from fill deposits presents difficulty when ascertaining their date of modifiation. The gunflint assemblage further reveals Native reuse of gunflint cores according to longstanding methods of lithic production. Within the lithic assemblage is an elongated, unifacial flake with a trapezoidal cross-section (73-800), which closely resembles a “true blade” (see Barber 1981; Fowler 1991). It was manufactured from “blond” or “honey- colored” chert of definite European origin, although the artifact has not yet been submitted to x-ray fluorescence to determine its exact source. A portion of the cortex can also be seen on the matrix. Gunflints are most often thought to have been imported only in their complete condition, but this artifact indicates that larger chert nodules also shipped from Europe to New England, whether purposefully as trade goods or to be used to manufacture additional flints, or indirectly as ballast stones. Honey-colored chert is most similar in color 234 and texture to jasper that can be found closest to Cocumscussoc in the steatite quarry at Lime Rock, Rhode Island used during the Late Woodland period (ca. 1000 AD) (see Luedtke 1987). Hence, the material and mechanical properties of imported chert were probably well-known to the Narragansetts. However, archaeologists most commonly associate blades, such as this, with pre-colonial Native settlements. Evidently, this interpretation, too, is uncertain as the artifact reveals the adaptation of longstanding practices to new lithic materials in the colonial period. At Cocumscussoc, the blade came from a middle level of a fill deposit with a large quantity of ceramics and faunal material and a MCD of 1750—the same level as the extensively modified gun spall (73-557). Similarly, it too shows some evidence of wear along one edge, and no evidence of resharpening. The collection of gun flints from the Jireh Bull House Site is smaller and less complete than the collection from Cocumscussoc. At this site, archaeologists recovered during the 1981 excavations only three brown or “blond” and two gray gunflint fragments from areas outside the house foundations. None of the fragments is intact enough to manifest the original production technique, either spall or blade-type, although one of the brown chert fragments may have been a pistol flint on account of its small scale. Three fragments—two brown and one gray—appeared in two consecutive levels of the unit placed in the midden area north of Feature A (EU-4-2 and EU-4-3) dated to 1685 and 1697-1738, respectively. The two remaining fragments came from the topmost level above the root cellar feature (EU-13-1) dated to between 1697 and 1710. The condition of the gunflints indicates 235 Figure 6.10: Modified gunflints and core from Cocumscussoc 236 they broke during use. However, the clustered spatial distribution of the artifacts suggests they were purposefully discarded during clean-up activity. More intensive excavation of the midden at the Jireh Bull House Site would likely produce additional examples for comparison. As at Cocumscussoc, I found evidence for the reuse of flint at the Jireh Bull House Site where a spent gunflint core was incorporated into the daily routines of domestic life. In 1917, excavators unearthed a small nodule of gray chert within the main house foundations (Figure 6.11). The discoidal core (see Ballin 2012:118) shows several faces where flakes were removed by percussion to make spall-type gunflints. Gunflints produced from the core were probably “advantageous” or “early wedge” shapes found at other early colonial sites in New England (Chartier 2002). However, no direct connection can be established between the core and the gunflint fragments recovered from the Jireh Bull House Site on the basis of material color or texture. At its present size, the core is exhausted—i.e.,, it is too small to create additional gunflints. But rather than being discarded, as were the gunflints distributed in the midden area of the house lot, it was curated and purposefully brought into the home. In the domestic context, it may have been reused in the kitchen as a fire-starter or “strike-a-light” (cf. Woodall, Trage, and Kirchen 1997). A similar “flint stone” can be found in Ephraim Bull's probate inventory, for example, valued at six pence, a small though not inconsiderable sum (see Reid 1987). This gray chert is most likely from a European lithic source. As in the case of the obsidian found at Cocumscussoc, how the object came to the site is unknown. 237 Scholars believe complete gunflints were imported from Europe, rather than produced in New England using imported raw materials. Hence, the nodule may have been inadvertently imported as ballast, and, after being deposited on the shore, was picked up by someone knowledgeable of its lithic properties—whether a Native American or a colonist. The discovery of gunflints at both the Cocumscussoc and Jireh Bull sites manifests the use of firearms around these two formerly fortified houses, although not necessarily in the context of King Philip's War. On one hand, the presence of multiple colors of chert at both sites is consistent with an aggregation of ammunition from several different locations, as occurred during preparations for the Narragansett Campaign. Moreover, the majority of gunflints was broken during use. On the other hand, the total number of gunflints found at both sites is far fewer than the number found at other military forts in the Northeast from the 17th century (cf. Faulkner 1986). Other datable artifacts found alongside the gunflints cast further doubt on a direct connection to King Philip's War. With the exception of the gunflint core found at the Jireh Bull House Site, nearly all of the gunflints came from redeposited fill dated by ceramics and pipe stem bores to the mid-18 th century. At Cocumscussoc, the discovery of two D-shaped blade (“French”) gunflints suggest a mid-18 th century depositional episode, as well. The discovery of gun spalls reworked into Levanna triangles not only indicates Natives were present on the sites at this time, but also engaged in lithic production using spent gun spalls as a raw material source. 238 Figure 6.11: Gunflint core from the Jireh Bull House Site 239 Utilized Glass Further evidence of the reuse of European-manufactured artifacts by Native Americans at both sites appears in the form of “utilized” or “chipped-glass” scrapers made from broken glass wine bottles (cf. Wilkie 1996). On colonial sites worldwide—in North America (Lightfoot et al. 1993: 167; McEwan 1991; Sayers 2007:154; Silliman 2004), South America (Conte and Romero 2008; Hayden and Deal 1987; Hayden and Nelson 1981; Pedrotta and Bagaloni 2005), Africa (Kimura 2006; Robbins et al. 2004), and Australia (Harrison 2003, 2005; cf. Akerman 2008)—archaeologists have found evidence that indigenous peoples imported “industrial glass” as a raw material to manufacture tools using traditional methods of stone-tool manufacture, whether to complement or to replace the use of lithic materials. Thus, in the colonial context, utilized bottle glass manifests the presence of indigenous peoples and the persistence (and transformation) of traditional cultural practices, and neither their disappearance nor acculturation. Although worked glass has been discovered on sites of cultural interaction across the colonial world, this class of artifacts has yet to be studied seriously in the 17th-century New England context. Despite the research potential of glass as a material that crossed cultural, geographical, and temporal boundaries, worked glass tools are difficult to identify and interpret (see Martindale and Jurkiac 2006). The most obvious examples emulate preexisting stone tools in form and manufacturing technique (Harrison 2003). Often, the identification of utilized glass on colonial sites is ambiguous—one reason archaeologists have been so late 240 to recognize them—because glass containers break into pieces that resemble traditional lithic forms (e.g., scrapers, knives, burins) and fragmentation leaves conchoidal scars resembling those left by pressure flaking (Martindale and Jurakic 2006). Drawing on longstanding methods from lithic analysis, archaeologists seeking to better differentiate tools from pseudo- tools study the “working edge” used in scraping activities. Retouch, or sharpening, of the edge leaves a sawtooth pattern of regularly sized and located flake scars, an appearance that cannot be produced through either fragmentation or post-depositional taphonomy, namely trampling. Some archaeologists have also studied the edge angle to differentiate “whittling” (low-angle) from “planing” (high-angle) activities (Cooper and Bowdler 1998; Wilkie 1996). Following a similar trajectory as lithic analysis, others have turned to the microscopic analysis of use-wear as a more objective method of differentiating activity types and substrate (Martindale and Jurakic 2006). However, these approaches were developed using 19th- century glass bottles in the American Southeast and Australia; neither method can be reliably used to study 17th-century bottle glass because of its poor quality of manufacture and preservation. The ubiquitous air bubbles in the glass produce a craggy rather than smooth working edge, and, from centuries spent underground, much of the glass has acquired a patina that flakes away taking evidence of use-wear with it. Over four decades of excavation at Cocumscussoc, archaeologists have recovered thousands of fragments from various glass containers produced from the 17 th through 20th centuries. The majority are small body fragments with little to no analytical value. However, 241 archaeologists grouped artifacts with potential diagnostic characteristics from the larger assemblage during artifact processing with the “small finds.” Among the hundreds of glass fragments excavated from Cocumscussoc, 10 utilized glass artifacts showed evidence of a working edge. All of the artifacts studied were previously selected as small finds for having been possibly reworked, although no attempt was made to further analyze this group. During reanalysis of this group, I eliminated some previously identified artifacts from study because they did not show conclusive evidence of reuse. It is possible that some glass which was intended for reuse, but never used is also contained in the collection, although identifying these artifacts is difficult, if not impossible. Glass from which the patina had been removed were particularly difficult to identify because the removal of the patina reveals a craggy surface similar to one created through use-wear. However, the fact that the patina had been removed was betrayed by the rough surface of the bottle under low-power microscopy (Figure 6.12, d). Among the positively identified samples, utilized glass artifacts fell into two distinct groups based on the part of the bottle from which they came: neck and body fragments. The first group contained six terminal neck fragments from globe-shaped wine bottles, which were split down the length of the neck (Figure 6.13). On each artifact, at least one edge of the fragment—usually the edge nearer the body—was ground down. In some cases, both edges show evidence of use-wear. All of these artifacts appear to have been reused as scrapers, similar to lithic correlates, although their poor preservation, as shown by the 242 thick patina which developed slowly after deposition, precludes the opportunity to identify the particular substrates by their characteristic use-wear scars (see Martindale and Jurakic 2006). All of the utlilized glass tools in this group came from free-blown, “globe-shaped” or “onion-shaped” wine bottles as evidenced by a single, poorly-shaped string rim applied near the lip. The two artifacts with a substantial portion of the finish remaining above the rim show a “flaring” shape. The color is often difficult to identify although the scrapers are various shades of dark green (often called “black”). With so little of the bottle remaining, it is difficult to reliably date the production of the bottles, but, according to the thickness and location of the rims (far from the lip), they are consistent with the late-17 th to early 18th- century (O. Jones 1986:43). One bottle (#163) may be slightly older than the others on account of its thinner glass, better preservation, and thinner lip attached closer the lip. Archaeologists found all of these artifacts in fill deposits in the front yard of Smith's Castle. Two of the scrapers came from the same level (C-505-5) with a MCD of 1739. Two others came from consecutive levels of a different unit (C-514-4 and C-514-5), both of which had a MCD of 1804. Another scraper came from a level with a MCD of 1727 (C-504-3). The final context did not have a MCD. The second type of utilized glass is a collection of four body fragments from alcohol bottles. Two shards are green-colored and two are colorless. These artifacts are much smaller than the neck fragments; thus, determining the type of container is impossible. On the other hand, they are better preserved than the artifacts in the bottle neck group. Evidence of 243 Figure 6.12: Micrographs of worked (a-c, e,f ) and unworked glass (d) from Cocumscussoc 244 Figure 6.13: Worked globe-shaped wine bottle finishes from Cocumscussoc 245 retouch was observed using a low-power digital microscope set at between 35- and 45-times magnification (Figure 6.12). Low-power microscopy of the artifacts in this group revealed cross-cutting flake scars running perpendicular to the working edge characteristic of retouch. In many cases, micro-chipping of the working edge consistent with use-wear was also observed. Micro-chipping along utilized edges is particularly apparent cross-cutting knapped areas. However, I was unable to identify the substrate cut by the glass using the particular use-wear traits identified by Martindale and Jurakic (2006). In general, striations left on the working edge were difficult to identify conclusively. Only one artifact (#210) showed different kinds of lines produced through stress caused by breakage and by use-wear (Figure 6.12, f ). The two nearly colorless glass shards were likely produced at a later date than the dark green fragments, although dating dark-green glass by color is inherently problematic when dealing with 17th-century wine bottles which range in shade. The colorless fragments are also substantially thinner than the green glass fragments, which provides further evidence of their later date of manufacture. However, archaeologists found most in contexts dating from the mid-18th to early-19th century. Archaeologists recovered the body fragment scrapers among redeposited fill in units across the front lawn of Smith's Castle in levels with MCDs of 1805 (C-429-2), 1807 (C-435-3), 1793 (C-522-3), and 1731 (C-526-4). These later dates provided by contextual evidence support the conclusion that they are fragments of bottles produced later than the wine bottles also reused as scrapers. At the Jireh Bull House Site, archaeologists in 1917 excavated two types of wine 246 Figure 6.14: Worked glass (a,b) and shatter (c) from the Jireh Bull House Site 247 Figure 6.15: Comparison of worked and unworked glass from Jireh Bull House Site These three pieces of the same globe-shaped wine bottle show the difference between fragmentation without modification (left and right) and use and retouch (center). (Left to right: 926-949, 926-948, 926-946.) 248 Figure 6.16: Worked glass scrapers from Jireh Bull House Site These three artifacts all show some evidence of use-wear from scraping. Erosion from scraping is especially recognizable on the left side of the central artifact. (Left to right: 926-1003, 926-989, and 926-967.) 249 Figure 6.17: Detail of worked glass (926-982)from Jireh Bull House Site The curved area has been completely worn away and smoothed. Scratches in the glass can also be seen through the patina, which indicate they were made prior to deposition and were not the result of a taphomic process. 250 bottles: globe-shaped and case-shaped. Scrutiny of the bottle glass in the artifact assemblage from the Bull Site revealed five examples of utilized glass (Figure 6.15-6.17). All five fragments came from globe-shaped wine bottles produced from the late-17 th to the early-18th century, although none was diagnostic of a particular decade. What little spatial data is available for bottle glass—all bottle glass artifacts were recovered in 1917—suggests all five were found within the walls of the two main foundations. Given the majority of non-utilized glass in the assemblage, it is likely modification of the glass bottles occurred within the house, as well. The largest, thickest, and most easily identifiable utilized shard (#926-948) was a body fragment from a medium-green glass bottle similar in color, thickness, and material quality to two other fragments from the same vessel (Figure 6.15). While all three shards show the effects of fragmentation, including sharp edges with conchoidal lines, the utilized shard has a serrated edge along two of its surfaces diagnostic of retouch. Only one edge was worked, as evidenced by a ground-down and polished area. The sharpened, unused edge appears to have been bifacially worked to reduce the thickness of the glass. A second artifact (#926-982), a heavily patinated body fragment from a dark green bottle, was identified macroscopically through use-wear. It has a smooth, curved area along its edge where the glass was ground away and polished, as though it had been run repeatedly down a length of rope (Figure 6.17). Small incised lines in the patina running parallel to the working edge suggest it was used as a cutting tool. The remaining three examples of utilized glass (#1003, 989, 967) 251 are all triangularly-shaped body fragments from at least two different vessels based on the thickness and color of the glass (Figure 6.16). (Artifacts #1003 and #989 may be from the same vessel as #982). These are all approximately the same size and have ground-down areas on at least one point suggestive of scraping activity, although the poor quality of the glass and presence of a patina prevents a microscopic analysis of use-wear. The utilized glass from both sites expands the body of evidence for Native American peoples at fortified houses initially identified on the basis of traditional lithic tools. Broken glass wine bottles are imminently “colonial” in that they are found distributed across sites of European colonization, but the re-use of this glass manifests the persistence of stone-tool manufacturing traditions on these sites. Finding utilized bottle glass at both sites suggests a geographically extensive cultural practice making use of raw materials available on postwar colonial sites. While worked glass artifacts are commonly labeled “expedient” in contrast to “formal” stone tools that achieve a particular style, consistencies in the selection of bottle type—always globe-shaped glass bottles, never square case bottles—between the two sites reveal careful material selection. Moreover, artifacts from both sites show some evidence of pressure flaking consistent with lithic production, and not merely picking sharp fragments off of the ground. However, variation between glass artifacts found at the two sites indicates site-specific practices of tool production and use. At Cocumscussoc, the majority of identifiable artifacts were utilized bottle necks, whereas these are absent from the collection from Jireh Bull, where triangularly-shaped, body-shard scrapers were most common. The 252 worked glass from Cocumscussoc also reveals a greater diversity in raw materials, including the use of clear glass, suggesting continuities in the practice after the Jireh Bull Site had been abandoned. Conclusion This chapter has considered the artifact assemblages previously excavated from two fortified house sites in Narragansett Country—the Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site and the Jireh Bull House Site—for evidence of Native Americans and the persistence of traditional cultural practices. First, it considered the nature of the assemblages and found, in the case of the Jireh Bull house, it was most similar to other frontier house sites on the New England frontier. Second, an examination of lithic artifacts—primarily gun flints and stone tools—showed evidence of reuse by Native Americans and Europeans and curation within the domestic context. Third, an investigation of broken wine bottles revealed evidence of reuse of shards as scraping and cutting tools, which I interpreted as evidence of the transference of traditional Native American lithic practices to glass, which was then a widely- available, lithic-like material. Given the temporal context of the two sites—both postdate King Philip's War by decades—the traces of Native American cultural practices recorded in these artifacts must be considered contemporaneous to the reconstruction and renovation of these sites. Although the possibility exists that colonists were engaged in appropriating Native lithic practices or otherwise moving around Native American artifacts, the evidence more 253 strongly suggests that Native Americans were present and active participants in social relations in Narragansett Country during the postwar period of reconstruction. At this time, colonists were not only increasingly extending control over Native landscapes and reconstructing their built environment to support the uncertain resolution to King Philip's War, but also appear to have been living in contact with former combatants. 254 Notes to Chapter 6 1 The first context contained 12 fragments measuring 7/64 in., 10 fragments measuring 8/64 in., and 3 fragments measuring 9/64 in. The average bore diameter was 7.64 64ths/in. The formula used to calculate the date of the context was created by Heighton and Deagan (1971). The second group of three was from two nonconsecutive levels (C- 523-5 and C-523-7) dated by tobacco pipe stems to 1695 and 1683, respectively. The MCD of the higher level was 1733. 255 CHAPTER 7 REMEMBERING GARRISON HOUSES The suspicious, revengeful savages rise to exterminate the foreigners… The tomahawk falls before the sword; Philip sleeps with his fathers. The sons of Canonchet smoke the pipe of peace with the children of the Pilgrims. Again the ax resounds through the wilderness, and the pioneer’s log-house rises on the hill-top. Bridle-paths are cut eastward and westward, and the music of the house-loom answers to the ring of the scythe (Dension 1878:309). [T]he very fact that monuments are built upon the land implies an underlying stratigraphy and thus an archaeology and perhaps alternative, interconnected histories (Handsman 2008:164). “Part way up the eastern slope of Tower Hill… there has been for many years a series of mounds, betrayed as stone heaps by the outcropping fragments,” reported a committee from the Society for Colonial Wars in 1918 (Burlingame et al. 1918:7). “The spot thus indicated has always been the traditional site of… Bull’s Garrison or Block House.” The “tradition” of the Jireh Bull house dates to the mid-18 th century. In 1729, Henry Bull, Jr., Attorney General of Rhode Island, petitioned the General Assembly to nullify a record of a highway running through his tenant farm in Narragansett, which had been commissioned by the town of South Kingstown, because the town had failed to give “notice to said petitioner, or his tenant” (Bartlett 1859, Vol. 4:415). The same year, probably in response to the legal 256 dispute, he commissioned a survey of his tenant farm. The resulting plat map depicts both the two-story tenant farmhouse and the new highway. It also represents the ruins of the “Old Garison House” with a shaded, rectangular line located in a copse of trees near the edge of a hill to the southeast of the farmhouse (Figure 7.1). Henry Bull, Esq., a grandson of Jireh Bull, had purchased this property, his grandfather's house lot, from his cousin, Benjamin Bull, in 1714, after his grandmother had died. Although born after King Philip's War had ended, the location of this once fortified house and the collective memory of its historical importance remained present. Fifteen years after purchasing the property, when Bull commissioned the survey of the land, his grandfather's house had fallen into disrepair, but it remained a prominent reminder of the troubles overcome by the previous generation. As the statement indicates, garrison houses from King Philip's War have never really been forgotten in local communities (see DeLucia 2012). Stories about these places and their locations were, at first, passed among families and neighbors before being codified in historical narratives, such as this one. More than three centuries on, King Philip's War retains a prominent sway on American culture despite popular ignorance of the war and its cultural context. Historians have argued that King Philip's War serves as the archetypal Indian war (Slotkin 1973), and its memory remains a parable for the birth of the American nation (Lepore 1998). Indeed, contemporary military language—the alias “Geronimo” to denote Osama bin Laden, for example—invokes an imagined, direct historical connection between 21st-century military expeditions and the “Old West,” and, in turn, to King Philip's War 257 (Silliman 2008). Beyond metaphors, others have seen parallels between the colonial conduct of King Philip's War and the contemporary War on Terror (Faludi 2007). Memory of the war also persists in local places of its violent encounters. In wider cultural analysis, Kenneth Foote (1997:5) suggests sites of war, “stained by blood of violence and covered by the ashes of tragedy, force people to face squarely the meaning of an event... they demand interpretation.” But interpretation of sites of violence is rarely, if ever, straight-forward, as evidenced by discordant interpretations of interpretations of King Philip's War by descendant communities of Indians and colonists still grappling with the conflict in local places (DeLucia 2012; Handsman 2008; Rubertone 2008). Although two recent historians refer to the war as “America's forgotten conflict” (Schultz and Tougias 1999), the Narragansett Indians believe the war is still ongoing in debates—and physical confrontations—over the relationship between state and tribal sovereignty (see Brown and Robinson 2006). For many New Englanders, King Philip's War persists through fortified houses, which are among the few places one can visit that appear to invoke this distant colonial past (DeLucia 2012). The garrisons used for defense in 1675 have long since been built over, but the houses built atop and the monuments placed near their former sties appear to evoke the colonists' fears of Indians and their unflappable persistence in settling an untamed wilderness. This dissertation endeavored to better understand the changing nature of engagements between Native and colonial peoples on the New England frontiers through an historical archaeological investigation of garrison houses from King Philip's War. After 258 Figure 7.1: 1729 Plat Map of Henry Bull's Farm (Source: http://www.rihs.org) 259 considering the social history of garrison houses across New England during the war, it focused on the fortified houses used in Narragansett Country, the ancestral homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe, in present-day Rhode Island. By weaving together multiple sources of evidence—historical documents and material culture, including landscapes, architecture, and artifacts—it demonstrated that these sites served as places of long-term engagement between Native American and Anglo colonial peoples. Garrison houses not only as places of attack and defense during the conflict, but also as places of reconstruction and rehabilitation in the war's aftermath. These were places to which colonists quickly returned and rebuilt, but they were also places of ongoing, everyday interaction between Narragansett Indians and Rhode Island colonists. This interpretation of garrison houses is at odds with antiquarian traditions of these sites, which promote triumphal narratives of colonial conquest. This concluding chapter assesses the disjuncture between the folk tradition of these sites created through these mnemonic practices and the historical and archaeological interpretation presented in this dissertation. A final note articulates the need to move toward a “shared history” of fortified houses in New England, which recognizes the presence of Native peoples at these sites before, during, and after King Philip's War, and recognizes alternative possible traditions of these places. Crafting a Tradition The practice of history writing emerged in New England during the mid-18 th century 260 with the centennials of the founding of its various colonies. These histories served to link narratives written during King Philip's War with oral traditions. In 1739, John Callender pastor of the First Baptist Church of Newport, composed the first history of the colony of Rhode Island in the form of a sermon. The sermon reflected on the providential nature of colonial settlement in the colony as evidenced by the replacement of Native savagery with colonial civilization. Garrison houses appear at several points in the historical narrative, beginning with their use in the early years of colonization. Callender (1739:72) writes, the Rhode Island colonists “appointed Garrison Houses, to which the People were to repair on an Alarm. Among which I find one was Mr. Lenthal's the minister.” He carried their use through King Philip's War—he relates the conflicting memories of who fired first at the Metapoiset garrison in Swansea, Massachusetts, whether an Indian or a colonist (Callender 1739:74)— and implicates the Rhode Island government in failing to properly garrison its mainland towns (Callender 1739:80). Callender composed his narrative 53 years after the end of the war in New England at a time when its veterans were either elderly or dead. It relies heavily on Hubbard's history written during King Philip's War. However, he calls into question the veracity of this earlier account by invoking dissonant oral traditions from “those ancient People, since dead” (Callender 1739:74). Unfortunately, he does not include much in the way of first-person accounts, and relies on garrison houses primarily to set the scene for various engagements between Natives and colonists. With the outbreak of the American Revolution, garrison houses took on new 261 importance as the physical evidence of early colonists' perseverance along the colonial frontier. For example, on December 31, 1775, as the Continental Army launched a bloody assault on the British at Quebec's Fort Frontenac, Rev. Nathan Fiske, minister of Brookfield, Massachusetts delivered an historical discourse concerning the town's origins. After surveying the original Indian settlement (Quaboag) and subsequent English settlement nearby (Brookfield), his attention shifted to King Philp's War. Consulting Thomas Wheeler's account of the Nipmuck raid on the town, Fiske described the colonists' gathering together in the “principal house,” the Ayres Tavern, their horror at the sight of a cart filled with combustible material rolling toward their fortress, and their relief when a sudden rain shower put out the fire. In so doing, Fiske connected the details of a war one century distant to the perils faced in the present, particularly the profound fear of another Indian war. To this end, the minister included details not found in Wheeler's original account to add emotional vibrancy to the horror of the Indian raid. “During the siege one man was wounded, as he was drawing water... The man affrighted, bawl'd out that he was kill'd. The Indian knowing his voice, shouted and said, 'Me kill Major Wilson'” (1792:260-261). These few words not only provide an inarticulate and savage voice to the unidentified Indian but also emphasize the familiarity between the two parties, and the treacherousness of one against the other. Thus, Fiske used the Indian raid as a cleverly designed lesson in the dishonesty of American enemies—Native American and British, alike. The case further reveals the cyclical flow of antiquarian tradition beginning with primary sources, which were then reconstituted into 262 Figure 7.2: Two 18th-century representations of Mary Rowlandson's garrison house The original 1682 printing of Mary Rowlandson's captivity narrative did not contain any images. These two frontispieces from reprint editions of Mary Rowlandson's captivity narrative—the top was published in 1770, the bottom in 1773—show different interpretations of her father's garrison house where she sheltered before being captured (Rowlandson 1682, cf. 1770, 1791). While both pictures contain architectural elements identified in the narrative, neither is an accurate representation of a 17th-century garrison house. 263 oral narrative, and finally rewritten as primary source material. At this time of crisis, the story of the Ayres garrison served both as an historical metaphor for their forebears' perseverance and the rightfulness of their cause, and also as a model for what the colonists might expect and how to properly defend themselves should the British soldiers convince the Iroquois to descend upon the New England colonies. During the era of the American Revolution, American colonists also began to reprint and circulate the histories written during and after King Philip's War. None was so popular as Mary Rowlandson's captivity narrative. Widowed soon after her redemption in 1678, Rowlandson and her two surviving children moved to Boston where she penned her memoir first published in 1682, The Soveraignty and Goodness of God, Together, With a Faithfulness of His Promises Displayed; Being a Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. In the first year of publication, printers in Boston and London produced more than 1,000 copies through four editions, making it one of the first American best sellers (Derounian 1998). As an introduction to such grim detail, the preface to the book’s second edition encouraged, “Read therefore, Peruse, Ponder, and from hence lay up something from the experience of another against thine own turn comes” (Rowlandson 1682:A4). The editor’s vision was realized more fully in the years before the American Revolution, when new editions of the book suddenly became popular once again, and in which “Rowlandson is refashioned as an American daughter of liberty” (Lepore 1998:187). In the text, Rowlandson evoked the chaos surrounding her sheltering in her father's garrison 264 house, but she was terse on its resemblance, fortifications, and use. Artists took liberties in illustrating the garrison house in two editions of the book, both of which feature the house. The woodcut frontispiece of the 1770 edition depicts Rowlandson in front of a circular fort built of stone or brick with ramparts and a barbican flying a flag. A woodcut in the 1773 edition shows Rowlandson at the threshold of a single-room, pitch-roofed house with four large windows with diagonal panes. These graphic renderings more accurately foretold future battles between American and British forces, than represented the fortified home in 1676 Figure 7.2). By the early-19th century, garrison houses and their history had become sources of entertainment in rural New England villages as lectures concerning town origins moved from meeting house to outdoors. Although the setting changed, the purpose of congregating to ponder garrison houses and those who once sheltered within them remained sacred. For those living through the Second Great Awakening, these sites provided evidence of the providential nature of their colonial ancestry. As Edward Everett (1835:3) put it prior to his lecture at the massacre site Bloody Brook in Deerfield, Massachusetts, “[g]athered together in this temple not made with hands, to unroll the venerable record of our fathers' history, let our first thoughts ascend to Him, whose heavens are spread out, as a glorious canopy, above our heads.” He further set the scene, “[t]his compact and prosperous village disappears, and a few scattered log-cabins are seen, in the bosom of the primeval forest, clustering for protection around the rude block house in the centre” (Everett 1835:4). At the height of the 265 Second Great Awakening, the commemoration of garrison houses and the lives lost in them was not only a matter of historical importance and spiritual awakening, but also an appropriate subject for storytelling, as details, such as the apocryphal image of the log cabin, became ever more separated from historical facts provided by wartime narratives. The point was not to retain historical accuracy, but to present the pertinent moral in an engaging and colorful narrative appropriate to the surroundings. With the advent of new nationhood, antiquarians also began to identify garrison houses and collect oral histories of these sites as part of a broader project to create a national and place-based history rivaling those of the Old World (cf. O'Brien 2010). Skulking the countryside in search of these monuments often proved more difficult than antiquarians had imagined, however. In one case, after being escorted to the site identified by an 84-year-old man as the former location of one garrison house built shortly after King Philip's War had ended, an antiquarian remarked, “[t]he field was under fine cultivation, but I could not forbear to express my regret that the memorial of the dead had not been preserved” (Holmes 1826:81). In other instances, antiquarians only discovered abandoned houses in disrepair. “It is dilapidated inside and out to a degree that every blast searches it through and through,” recounted Samuel Adams Drake (1875:139), “though it lacks its ancient warlike accessories, its lookouts, palisades, and flankarts.” Nonetheless, the condition of the house sparked his historical imagination. “In one room was an old hand-loom; in another a spinning-wheel lay overturned; and in the fire-place the iron crane, blackened with soot, was still fixed as it 266 Figure 7.3: The Rhode Island Mace at the inauguration of the Governor of Rhode Island (Source: More Historical Facts About the Rhode Island Mace 2009) 267 might have been when the garrison was beset.” Undoubtedly, this was the scene portrayed by the owner of the property. “Mr. M’Intire… showed me an opening in the floor of the projection [of the second story] through which, according to the family tradition, boiling water was poured upon the heads of any who might try to force an entrance.” In antiquarians' notebooks, local narratives altered and changed over centuries were recorded as historical facts. In houses that were still standing, antiquarians collected relics from the decaying structures. The last resident of the Arthur Fenner house in Cranston, Rhode Island, which was rebuilt immediately after King Philip's War, known popularly as the “Old Fenner Castle,” died in 1861. In its final years of occupation, and perhaps for a longer period before, the house fell into disrepair “from lack of care” (Field 1902:606). For those seeking an impression of early colonial life, the advanced decay of the house added to its attraction; virtual tours to and through the site, accompanied by biographical sketches of its occupants, appeared in a variety of weekly magazines. (e.g., W.C.W. 1920:124; Minnich 2896:263). At the same time, antiquarians appear to have to wandered freely through the house and began to collect objects in the interest of historic preservation. “Miss Eleanor Field presented a set of these hinges to the Rhode Island Historical Society in 1857,” reports one history of the site, which “are sacredly preserved as valuable relics of the oldest house, with the exception of a stone house on Spring street, Newport, in the State” (Minnich 1896:263; see also Field 1902:605-606). After serving as a monument and site to collect colonial artifacts, the 268 remnant chimney was pulled down in 1886 (Downing 1937). According to one account, “[t]he owner at that period was said to dislike the coming of sightseers to view the house and hence had it demolished” (More Historical Facts About the Rhode Island Mace 2009). However, at the time of deconstruction, someone collected a piece of this beam and refashioned it into a ceremonial staff, which continues to be paraded through Warwick as part of celebrations of American independence (Figure 7.3). During the mid-19th century, impassioned debates erupted over their proper identification, and local historians turned to archaeology of extant foundations as a method of verifying documentary evidence. For example, on Thanksgiving Day, 1828, Pastor Joseph Foot of Brookfield delivered another discourse on his town's origins, including the Indian raid on the Ayres tavern. “There has been of late years no small disagreement respecting the place, where the fortified house stood,” described Foot (1829:31). He continued, “a well has been discovered near the north west corner of Mr. Tyler Marsh's door yard, of which the oldest inhabitants can give no account except that they have been told, it belonged to the fortified house... On examination however it was found that a building had stood on the place. Several loads of stone, which had formed a cellar and chimney were removed, amongst which various instruments of iron and steel were found.” (Foot 1829:31). A few years later, similar disagreements grew over the location of the Rev. Miles Garrison in Swansea, Massachusetts where the colonial army drawn from Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay had camped when they attempted to arrest Metacom at the beginning of King Philip's War. The 269 accidental discovery of cannon balls in 1833, during landscape improvements to a house, led some to speculate that they had discovered the long-lost site (Bliss 1836:77). By contrast, antiquarians excavating the John Cooke garrison sometime before 1900 discovered “various arrow heads, spoons and cooking utensils dug up on the site” (Tripp 1904), which they placed in a museum despite offering little in the way of a militaristic narrative. By the first decades of the 20th century, state governments and historic preservation societies began an extensive process of marking important historical sites in New England history by either erecting monuments or marking boulders located nearby (see Lindgren 1995; Handsman 2008; Rubertone 2008). Sites related to King Philip's Was, such as the locations where colonists had been killed and buried, were particularly popular among other themes related to the colonial era, from the arrival of the Pilgrims to the American Revolution (The Committee on Marking Historical Sites 1913). Today, most of the former locations of houses used as defenses during the war can be identified by some kind of stone or metal marker. In many cases markers served to identify nondescript places, usually agricultural fields, as historically significant to the nation's past. In 1912, the Massachusetts state government installed a bronze plaque on a huge boulder in the middle of a field near the supposed site of the Miles (Myles) garrison house in Swansea, Massachusetts. The plaque reads, in part, NEAR THIS SPOT STOOD THE JOHN MYLES GARRISON HOUSE THE PLACE OF MEETINGS OF THE TROOPS OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY AND PLYMOUTH COLONIES COMMANDED BY MAJORS THOMAS SAVAGE 270 AND JAMES CUDWORTH WHO MARCHED TO THE RELIEF OF SWANSEA AT THE OPENING OF KING PHILIP'S WAR A.D. 1675. Similar plaques appeared at the sites of the Sawyer and Rowlandson houses in Lancaster, Massachusetts, the Fairbanks house in Medway, Massachusetts, and the Jocelyn “fort” in Scarborough, Maine, among many others. In this way, these markers established a re- established a cartography of garrison house sites despite their having been long lost. Commemoration of these sites also included pageants, which reenacted King Philip's War through the erection and destruction of garrison houses. In Lancaster, Massachusetts, on July 4, 1912, townspeople held a pageant celebrating the colonial history of their town, from first settlement to the American Revolution. In the opening act, their neighbors decked in Puritan garb—cylindrical hats, white shawls, and brass shoe buckles—ate a noonday meal cooked over an open fire. Meanwhile, a second group of actors clad in loincloths and feathers representing the Nashaway band of the Nipmuck Indian Tribe made a fire in front of a teepee while their Indian children looked on. In the pageant’s second act, the audience saw these two groups encounter each other: an actor in blackface, portraying a Nashaway Indian chief, scrutinized and signed a deed for land on which the town of Lancaster would be built. But these were preludes to the main attraction. In preparation for the pageant’s third act, the townspeople had constructed a full-scale replica of a colonial-era “blockhouse” surrounded by a wooden palisade. As the scene opened, the Nashaway band skulked across the green brandishing tomahawks. They raided and burned the house, attacked and captured the 271 colonists, and slew the men who attempted to defend their stronghold (Figure 7.4). Despite the scene of destruction, the colonists reappeared for the fourth and final act, reincarnated as the colonial militia called to muster on the green after hearing news of the conflict at Lexington and Concord. The townspeople of Brookfield, Massachusetts have held similar reenactments of “Wheeler's Surprise”—the Nipmuck raid on the Ayres Tavern— approximately every 50 years, most recently in 2011, an event that has recently drawn Native peoples as well as reenactors. Thus, an interest in the garrison houses from King Philip's War remains into the 21 st century through history, archaeology, reenactments, and site tours. However, when the subject does appear in contemporary literature, usually in the context of military history, descriptions about the defensibility of these sites continue to rely on 18 th- and 19th-century antiquarian traditions. According to one recent example, Sometime during the seventeenth century, the New England colonists developed a type of fortification known as a GARRISON HOUSE. This term applied to a variety of structures that could vary from a simple stoutly built home to a more elaborate blockhouse where members of a community could gather in case of attack. Instead of normal windows they had loopholes or windows of reduced proportions, no more than one foot by one foot and closed by heavy shutters. These houses were often surrounded by their own palisade (Kaufmann and Kaufmann 2004:55). Even as historians have long questioned the veracity of colonial folklore, the early antiquarian imagination—and the written descriptions sprung from it—continue to shape the ongoing conception of fortified houses to the present. The many “traditions” of New England’s fortified homes have a recursive quality, 272 Figure 7.4: Fourth of July pageant, Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1912 Actors portraying Mary Rowlandson, her daughter, a neighbor, and their Indian captor reenact the Native American raid on Lancaster, Massachusetts, February 10, 1676. In the background, the palisaded “blockhouse” built for the pageant smolders, while townspeople look on across the field littered with actors playing dead colonists. This image conveys the misperceptions common to New England antiquarians about the form and function of fortified homes at the turn of the 20 th century. (Source: Thayer Memorial Library 2012) 273 with certain traits and themes frequently reappearing in ever more evocative language to create a common, unified folklore. For example, despite the passage of centuries, the representation of garrison houses in the present appears much as it did during the 18 th century. Garrison houses remain symbols of violent encounter between Native and colonial peoples and of subsequent disappearance of Indian peoples. This formalization of key themes identifies an “invented tradition,” or “a set of practices... of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with a suitable historic past” (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983:1; see also, e.g., Ben-Amos 1984; McDonald 1997). As Glassie (1995:395) reminds, tradition is also a process of conversion: “the creation of the future out of the past.” In the case of garrison houses, invented tradition converts these sites of 17th-century conflict into guiding principles for new generations through a combination of historical documents, oral histories, architecture, material culture, monuments, and more ephemeral practices of collective memory, such as site visitation and conservation. Between Archaeology and Tradition This dissertation used historical archaeology to better understand garrison houses from King Philip's War, and to contrast the archaeological narrative with antiquarian tradition. The introduction placed garrison houses from King Philip's War in a trajectory of research on culture-contact and colonialism which has repeatedly discovered the traces of 274 indigenous peoples on frontier military sites. Although these sites have primarily been interpreted as evidence of the diffusion of Anglo colonial culture around the world, from Virginia to South Africa to Australia, they, too, have repeatedly unearthed Native artifacts. Thus, the introduction suggested that garrison houses might also be places to understand the changing relationship between Native and colonial peoples during and after King Philip's War. The second chapter investigated the use of fortified houses during King Philip's War through a critical reading of wartime and postwar narratives. It found these sites were sites of aggregation for colonial and Native peoples in New England during the war. In addition to attacking these houses, Natives took shelter in and around them. The chapter also showed these were primarily small, two-roomed houses of one or one-and-a-half stories with few, if any, defensive works. Despite their poor defenses, they became important strategic sites—and significant cultural symbols—for both Native and colonial peoples. These were places where colonial peoples reimagined their changed relationship with Native New England. Chapter three took a Native-centered “homelands perspective” to these sites. It identified a group of garrison houses built in Narragansett Country, the ancestral homeland of the Narragansett Indian Tribe in Rhode Island. The chapter studied the spatial relationship to prehistoric sites in Rhode Island using historical documents and archaeological records, demonstrating the close proximity of Narragansett and colonial sites. Finally, it presented a case-study of the attack on the Jireh Bull house in South Kingstown, 275 Rhode Island by tracing a multi-decade history of land disputes between the colonists living there and local Narragansett sachems, arguing that the attack during King Philip's War fulfilled the threats of violent resistance to colonial intrusion beyond particular spatial boundaries. The fourth chapter began to investigate the postwar era by studying the resettlement of Narragansett Country. It focused on three spatial practices involved in this process: re- peopling the landscape, re-naming sites, and organizing paths of movement. The chapter found that colonists returned to garrison houses and rebuilt communities around them, began to increasingly rely on colonial names, and appropriated and codified previously Narragansett pathways. However, Narragansetts also transgressed the margins of this new spatial order at its margins. The chapter argues that the spatial order was an attempt to ameliorate the anxiety about the ongoing presence of Native peoples in the postwar landscape and fears of reprisals. The next chapter turned to the vernacular architecture of garrison houses in the postwar era. It focused on two architectural processes: reconstruction and renovation. Reconstruction, which commenced immediately after the war had finished, consisted of setting the houses back to their prewar appearance. This process lasted for less than a decade after the war. Renovation included adding new rooms and, in some cases, entirely new structures to the buildings used during King Philip's War. The process of renovation shows considerable stylistic variation ranging from stone-enders to timber framed to byre-houses 276 suggesting multiple, competing influences and desires. The chapter argued that the architectural restoration of garrison houses in Narragansett Country was an attempt to remove the traces of war from these sites. Chapter six investigated evidence of the presence of Native peoples and their cultural persistence at two garrison house sites in Narragansett Country: the Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site and the Jireh Bull House Site. It compared lithic and lithic-like artifacts, gunflints, and worked or chipped glass artifacts. The chapter found evidence for the curation of lithic artifacts, the reuse of gunflints, and the use of broken globe-shaped bottle glass as a raw material source. When combined with contextual information, these artifacts suggest that Native peoples were living in and around these sites into the 18 th century, the period when many colonists believed they had acculturated and disappeared. An historical archaeological approach to garrison houses draws together documentary and material evidence to develop a multi-stranded history of these sites. When compared to other sites from the historic period, garrison houses are poorly documented; they are identified only by passing references in letters, wills, probates, among others. In comparison to other military sites, they are also difficult to identify archaeologically; excavation does not reveal the expected palisade walls or caches of military equipment. Hence, weaving together these different strands of evidence provides the means to write more accurate and elaborate site histories. Moreover, when knitting these strands, historical archaeology also allows scrutiny of the dissonances between the historical narratives suggested by these different lines 277 of evidence. In some cases, this consists of using material evidence to better interpret historical documents or fill the gaps between them. In others, it serves to present altogether different narratives, as in the case of Native artifacts. On a more theoretical level, the historical archaeology of these sites also reveals their dissonance with antiquarian tradition. The first dissonance concerns the time period of these sites. Various traditions have identified particular houses and foundations as the remains of garrison houses from King Philip's War. However, the sites identified are rarely as old as suspected. By contrast, historical documents and artifacts point to the history of these sites as places of reconstruction and renovation after King Philip's War. Nonetheless, the tradition of these sites always reverts back to their role in the war, to the exclusion of this longer, and more elaborate narrative. The underlying tenet of this practice is that the sites are important only because of their role in the war; were this direct historical connection to dissipate, they would have little to add to the historical record. The second dissonance between archaeology and tradition is the nature of engagements between Native and colonial peoples. Archaeology of these sites recovers little evidence of violent conflict. Rather, it reveals the mundane traces of daily life. Antiquarian tradition has often gone to great lengths to read various architectural and archaeological details through a military lens. But the reanalysis of these sites shows Native and colonial peoples were in contact with each other, however tensely, at these sites in the postwar era. An omission of this narrative belies a common predilection for violent encounter over acts of reconstruction and rehabilitation, as well as ongoing 278 displacement and domination of Native peoples. I argue that this blind spot in the history of these sites is a symptomatic of a longstanding process of mnemonic displacement begun in the immediate aftermath of the war. The reconstruction of garrison houses obliterated traces of their prewar appearance and wartime destruction. These were not only rebuilt houses, but also expanded versions of the colonial errand. At the same time, colonists and Narragansett Indians reengaged with each other, a natural fact of their close proximity in the postwar years. In this case, tradition appears the immutable voice of previous generations, which provides a path to the future out of the past, about the significance of garrison houses. The conventional narrative of triumphal conquest over the Native peoples of New England indicates a providential course to New England history, and American history more broadly. However, this tradition is not only fallible, but also carefully constructed to gloss over the long-term nature of Native- colonial engagements in New England beginning before King Philip's War and extending through its aftermath. Tradition thereby simplifies the nature of engagements between Native and colonial peoples. Thus, by questioning tradition, one is also questioning a course for the future. Directions for Further Research There are other hypotheses upon which the house could be restored and its history conjectured, but we shall leave them to the ingenuity of the reader. He has our data before him, and if our conjectures—which are, after all, in the case of this house only conjectures—are not satisfactory to him, and they are not altogether so to ourselves, 279 he is welcome to try his skill on the most puzzling problem in the architectural history of the colony (Isham and Brown 1895:28). Garrison houses remain vital sites to investigate colonialism in New England, and in other sites of colonization by English settlers. However, this dissertation demonstrates the need to reconsider these sites as places of long-term colonial engagement beginning before and extending after short periods of war. Although some documentary evidence pertaining to these sites may yet be discovered in the many archives across New England, archaeology presents the greatest opportunity to learn more about these sites. As archaeologists become more sensitive to perceiving the traces of Native American cultural practices in the colonial period, such as worked glass, they will also better understand those traces on garrison houses leading to more substantive and inclusive interpretations of their site histories. By placing these sites in a comparative framework, broader patterns of Native-colonial interaction may be identified. Toward this end, more extrusive excavation of garrison house sites must be completed. Fieldwork should include: first, additional excavation of previously identified garrison house sites, such as the Jireh Bull House Site; second, garrison house sites that were identified and excavated in the 19th century, but have seen little work since; and third, the identification and excavation of previously unrecognized garrison houses. As scrutiny of garrison houses in Narragansett Country reveals, the full extent of these sites in other colonial regions is poorly understood. The archaeology of garrison houses is ongoing in New England, but appears much as 280 it did during the early-19th century. Most excavations are small scale and conducted by local historical societies with the aim of reconstructing the local history of these sites by filling in the blanks left in historical documents. However, the history of these sites as places violence perpetrated by and against Native and Anglo Americans makes them highly-charged places of ongoing cultural encounter between descendent communities of those engaged in King Philip's War, communities with vastly different memories and understandings of this colonial conflict (Den Ouden 2005; DeLucia 2012; Rubertone 2008, 2012; Handsman 2008). For many Native peoples in New England, King Philip's War remains unresolved and constantly reignited through the social and political context demands approaching their archaeology from a multicultural perspective attuned to the different, and possibly conflicting, accounts of their significance. Yet, the widespread public interest in these sites might also be the source for greater engagement; these sites are ideal contexts to conduct “public archaeology” or “community archaeology” uniting academics with local community members in the interest of better understanding the nature of these sites. By adopting a critical approach to the history and archaeology of garrison house sites, archaeologists may be able to produce more substantive scholarship, and to educate the public on alternative narratives of these frontier military sites. During the past decade, some archaeologists have proposed the idea of “shared histories” as one possible avenue toward reconciling discordant historical interpretations between the descendant communities of natives and settlers in postcolonial contexts. The 281 idea of shared history or histories has appeared recently in historical archaeological literature from Australia (Murray 2004). As Murray (2004) explains, “the existence of 'shared histories' and 'shared identites' does not mean there can ever be, or should ever be, a single account of those histories or identities.” Rodney Harrison (Harrison 2002:38) elaborates, developing a shared history of colonialism is partially pursuing research from a multi-cultural, multi-focal perspective, and partially aimed at understanding “the relationship between these shared pasts and the long-term (pre)historic trajectories of Aboriginal Australia.” Historical archaeologists are particularly well-situated to contribute to this area of research insofar as they straddle prehistoric and historic pasts of colonial sites (Harrison 2002). Murray (1996:210) describes this approach to archaeology as “an archaeology of dispossession, assimilation, multiculturalism, and reconciliation.” That is, it is an archaeology that is restorative, rather than “vindicationist” (Mullins 2008). Although the term, “shared history,” has not circulated widely outside of Australia (cf. Hart 2008; Agbe-Davies 2010), garrison- house sites from King Philip's War are ideal contexts in which to test the efficacy of the approach to emphasize plural, noncompeting historical narratives related to these sites of colonial violence. 282 BIBLIOGRAPHY A Brief and True Narration 1675 A Brief and True Narration of the Late Wars Risen in New-England: Occasioned by the Quarrelsom Disposition, and Perfidious Carriage of the Barbarous, Savage and Heathenish Natives There. London: Printed for J. S. Early English Books Online, http://eebo.chadwyck.com. A Story of the Block-House 1884 Narragansett Historical Register 3: 172-173. Akerman, Kim 2008 “Missing the Point” or “What to Believe—the Theory or the Data”: Rationales for the Production of Kimberly Points. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 70-79. Andrén, Anders 1998 Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective. New York: Plenum. Andrews, William L. 1990 Journeys in New Worlds: Early American Women’s Narratives. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Arkush, Elizabeth 2011 Explaining the Past in 2010. American Anthropologist 113(2): 200-212. Arnold, Fred A. 1921 English Homes of Three Early “Proprietors.” Rhode Island Historical Society Collections 14(3): 68. 1935 The Arnold Memorial: William Arnold of Providence and Pawtuxet, 1587-1675, and a Genealogy of His Descendants. Rutland, VT: Tuttle Publishing Company. Arnold, James N., ed. 1894 The Records of the Proprietors of the Narragansett, Otherwise Called the Fones Record. Vol. 1. Rhode Island Colonial Gleanings. Providence: Narragansett Historical Publishing Company. Ashmore, Wendy 283 2002 “Decisions and Disposition”: Socializing Spatial Archaeology. American Anthropologist 104(4): 1172-1183. Austin, John Osborne 2008 The Genealogical Dictionary of Rhode Island: Comprising Three Generations of Settlers Who Came Before 1690, with Many Families Carried to the Fourth Generation. George Andrews Moriarty and Albert Klyberg, eds. Clearfield. 2009 One Hundred and Sixty Allied Families. Genealogical Publishing Company. Bacon, Edwin M. 1898 Walks and Rides in the Country Round About Boston: Covering Thirty-Six Cities and Towns, Parks and Public Reservations, within a Radius of Twelve Miles from the State House. Cambridge: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. http://books.google.com. Baker, Emerson W. n.d. Virtual Phips: Archaeology of the Phips Homestead Woolrich, Maine (ca. 1639- 1676). Virtual Norumbega: The Northern New England Frontier. http://beacon.salemstate.edu/~ebaker/Phipsweb/phipsindex.html#architecture. Ballin, Torben Bjarke 2012 “State of the Art” of British Gunflint Research, with Special Focus on the Early Gunflint Workshop at Dun Eistean, Lewis. Post-Medieval Archaeology 46(1): 116- 142. Banivauna-Mar, Tracey 2012 Belonging to Country: Racialising Space and Resistane on Queensland's Transnational Margins, 1880-1900. Australian Historical Studies 43(2): 174-190. Banivauna-Mar, Tracey 2012 Bankoff, H. Arthur, and Frederick A. Winter 1979 “A House-Burning in Serbia: What Do Burned Remains Tell an Archaeologist?” Archaeology 32(5): 8-14. Barber, Russell J. 1981 True Blades in Massachusetts. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Massachusetts 42(2): 25-27. 284 Barron, Donna Gentle Spirit 2006 The Long Island Indians and their New England Ancestors: Narragansett, Mohegan, Pequot & Wampanoag Tribes. Bloomington: Authorhouse. Baron, Donna Keith, J. Edward Hood, and Holly V. Izard 1996 They Were Here All Along: The Native American Presence in Lower-Central New England in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 53(3): 561-586. Bartlett, John Russell, ed. 1856-1865 Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England. 10 Vols. Providence: Rhode Island General Assembly. Beaudry, Mary C. 2006 Findings: The Material Culture of Needlework and Sewing. New Haven: Yale University Press. Beaudry, Mary C., and Douglas C. George 1987 “Old, Data, New Findings: 1940s Archaeology at Plymouth Reexamined.” American Archaeology 6(1): 20-30. Beaudry, Mary C., Lauren J. Cook, and Stephen A. Mrozowski 1991 Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse. In The Archaeology of Inequality. Randall H. McGuire and Robert Paynter, eds. Pp. 150- 191. Oxford: Blackwell. Benard, Akeia A. F. 2008 The Free African American Cultural Landscape: Newport, RI, 1774-1826. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut. Ben-Amos, Dan 1984 The Seven Strands of Tradition: Varieties in Its Meaning in American Folklore Studies. Journal of Folklore Research 21(2/3): 97-131. Bender, Barbara 1998 Stonehenge: Making Space. New York: Berg. Bender, Barbara, and Margot Winer, eds. 2001 Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place. Oxford: Berg. 285 Benjamin, Walter 1968 Theses on the Philosophy of History. In Illuminations: Essays and Reflections. Hannah Arendt, ed. Pp. 253-264. New York: Schoken. Berleant-Schiller, Riva 2002 Mahican Life and Moravian Missions: Pachgatgoch, Connecticut and Friedenshutten, Pennsylvania, 1742-1772. Northeast Anthropology 63: 1-21. Bernstein, David J. 1993 Prehistoric Subsistence on the Southern New England Coast: The Record from Narragansett Bay. San Diego: Academic Press. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994 The Location of Culture. Routledge: New York. Bicknell, Thomas Williams 1920 The History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 5 vols. New York: American Historical Society. Blanchette, Jean-Francois 1975 Gunflints from Chicoutimi Indian Site (Quebec). Historical Archaeology 9: 41-75. Blanton, Richard E. 1993 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. New York: Plenum. Bliss, Leonard, Jr., ed. 1836 The History of Rehoboth, Bristol County, Massachusetts; Comprising a History of the Present Towns of Rehoboth, Seekonk, and Pawtucket, from Their Settlement to the Present Time; Together with Sketches of Attleborough, Cumberland, and a Part of Swansey and Barrington, to the Time That They Were Severally Separated from the Original Town. Boston: Otis, Broaders, & Co. Internet Archive, http://archive.org. Bodge, George Madison 1886 The Narragansett Fort Fight, December 19, 1675. Boston: Privately Printed. Bohnert, Allen S., and Margo Surovik-Bohnert 1991 Destructive Analysis of Archaeological Collections: Between Scylla and Chrybdis. In Natural History Museums: Directions for Growth. Paisley S. Cato and Clyde Jones, eds. Pp. 113-122. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. 286 Booth, Sally S. 1999 Reconstructing Sexual Geography: Gender and Space in Changing Sicilian Settlements. In House Life: Space, Place and Family in Europe. Donna Birdwell- Pheasant and Denise Lawrence-Zúñiga, eds. Pp. 133-156. New York: Berg. Bossevain, Ethel 1956 The Detribalization of the Narragansett Indians: A Case Study. Ethnohistory 3(3): 225-245 1959 Narragansett Survival: A Study of Group Persistence Through Adapted Traits. Ethnohistory 6(4): 347-362. 1975 The Narragansett People. Phoenix: Indian Tribal Series. Boulanger, Matthew T., Thomas R. Jamison, Craig Skinner, and Michael D. Glascock 2007 Analysis of an Obsidian Biface Reportedly Found in the Connecticut River Valley of Vermont. Archaeology of Eastern North America 35: 81-92. Bradstreet, Simon, John Saffin, and Elisha Hutchinson 2002 An Advertisement. Early American Imprints, Series 1, no. 39203. American Antiquarian Society and Newsbank. Bragdon, Kathleen J. 1996 Native People of Southern New England, 1600-1650. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Brain, Jeffrey P. 2001 The Popham Colony: An Historical and Archaeological Brief. Salem, MA: Peabody Essex Museum. Brewster, Charles Warren 1859 Rambles About Portsmouth: Sketches of Persons, Localities, and Incedents of Two Centuries: Principally from Tradition and Unpublished Documents. Portsmouth, NH: C. W. Brester and Son. Bright-Fishbein, Benjamin 2007 Stone Tool Production at Cocumscussoc: The Evidence for Pre-Contact Native Occupation. Unpublished manuscript on file in the Giddings Anthropology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, RI. 287 Brooks, Charles 1855 History of the Town of Medfield. Boston: J. M. Usher. Brown, Richmond Forrest 2008 Coastal Encounters: The Transformation of the Gulf South in the Eighteenth Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Brown, John B., and Paul A. Robinson 2006 “The 368 Years' War”: The Conditions of Discourse in Narragansett Country. In Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States. Jordan E. Kerber, ed. Pp. 59-75. Lincoln: Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska Browne, Richard 1692 The English Examiner: Or, A Spelling-Book. London: Thomas Basset. Early English Books Online. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88- 2003&res_id=xri:eebo&rft_id=xri:eebo:image:65215 Brumfiel, Elizabeth 2003 It's A Material World: History, Artifacts, and Anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 205-223. Burlingame, Edwin Aylsworth, Norman Morrison Isham, and Charles Edward Cannon 1918 A Preliminary Report on the Excavations at the House of Jireh Bull on Tower Hill in Rhode Island. Providence: Society of Colonial Wars. Bush, Sargent 1995 Sarah Kemble Knight (1666–1727). Legacy 12(2): 112–120. Byrne, Denis R. 2003 Nervous Landscapes: Race and Space in Australia. Journal of Social Archaeology 3(2): 169-193. Callender, John 1739 An Historical Discourse on the Civil and Religious Affairs of the Colony of Rhode- Island and Providence Plantations in New-England in America. Boston: S. Kneeland and T. Green. Internet Archive, http://archive.org. Calloway, Colin, ed. 288 1997 After King Philip's War: Presence and Persistence in Indian New England. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Camp, Helen B. 1976 Archaeological Excavations at Pemaquid, Maine, 1965-1974. Augusta: Maine State Museum. Canny, Nicholas P. 1973 The Ideology of English Colonization: From Ireland to America. William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 30(4): 573-576. 1988 Kingdom and Colony: Ireland in the Atlantic World, 1580-1800. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Carpenter, Daniel Hoogland 1901 History and Genealogy of the Carpenter Family in America: From the Settlement at Providence, R. I. 1637-1901. Jamaica, NY: Marion Press. Carr, Caleb 1883 Will of Governor Caleb Carr. Newport Historical Magazine 3(4): 23-230. Chartier, Craig S. 2001 A Reinterpretation of the Attack on the Clark Garrison/RM Site Plymouth, Massachusetts. Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project. http://plymoutharch.tripod.com/id16.html. 2002 Firearms in Plymouth Colony. Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project. http://plymoutharch.tripod.com/id71.html. Church, Thomas 1827 The History of Philip’s War, Commonly Called the Great Indian War, of 1675 and 1676. Also, of the French and Indian Wars at the Eastward, in 1689, 1690, 1692, 1696, and 1704. Samuel G. Drake, ed. Boston: Samuel G. Drake. Google Books. Clements, Joyce M. 1993 The Cultural Creation of the Feminine Gender: An Example from 19th-Century Military Households at Fort Independence, Boston. Historical Archaeology 27(4): 39-64. 2008 Phase I/II Archaeological Investigations in Support of a Geophysical Survey at 289 Smith's Castle, North Kingstown (Wickford), Washington County, Rhode Island. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission, Providence, RI. Cobb, Charles R. 2005 Archaeology and the “Savage Slot”: Displacement and Emplacement in the Premodern World. American Anthropologist 107(4): 563-574. Cobb, Charles R., and Chester B. DePratter 2012 Multisited Research on Colonowares and the Paradox of Globalization. American Anthropologist 114(3): 446-461. Coe, Michael D. 2006 The Line of Forts: Historical Archaeology on the Colonial Frontier of Massachusetts. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England. Cole, J. R. 1889 History of Washington and Kent Counties, Rhode Island, Including their Early Settlement and Progress to the Present Time; a Description of their Historic and Interesting Localities; Sketches of Their Towns and Villages; Portraits of Some of their Prominent Men, and Biographies of Many of their Representative Citizens. New York: W. W. Preston. Google Books. Committee on Marking Historical Sites in Rhode Island 1913 Report on Committee on Marking Historical Sites in Rhode Island. Providence: E. L. Freeman. Google Books, http://books.google.com. Connah, Graham 1998 The Archaeology of Frustrated Ambition: An Australian Case-Study. Historical Archaeology 32(2): 7-27. 2001 The Lake Innes Estate: Privilege and Servitude in Nineteenth-century Australia.” World Archaeology 33(1): 137-154. Connole, Dennis A. 2001 Indians of the Nipmuck Country in Southern New England 1630-1750: An Historical Geography. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland. Conte, Ignacio Clemente, and Facundo Gómez Romero 2008 Microwear Analysis of Retouched Glass Fragmens from Fortlet Miñana, Azul, 290 Argentina, 1860-1863. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 12:248-262. Cook, Sherburne F. 1973 Interracial Warfare and Population Decline among the New England Indians. Ethnohistory 20(1): 1-24. 1976 The Indian Population of New England in the Seventeenth Century. University of California Publications in Anthropology 12. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cooper, Zarine, and Sandra Bowdler 1998 Flaked Glass Tools from the Andaman Islands and Australia. Asian Perspectives 37(1): 74-83. Coutts, Peter J. F. 1976 An Approach to the Investigation of Colonial Settlement Patterns: Whaling in Southern New Zealand. World Archaeology 7(3): 291-305. 1985 Towards the Development of Colonial Archaeology in New Zealand. Part 2: Early Settlement Patterns in Southern New Zealand. Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology 3: 31-42. Crabtree, Pam, Douglas V. Campana, and John R. Wright 2002 Exploring the Archaeological Potential of French-Indian War Fortifications. CRM 3: 21-22. http://crm.cr.nps.gov/archive/25-03/25-03-9.pdf Crampton, Jeremy W., and Stuart Elden (eds.) 2007 Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Cronon, William 1983 Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Macmillan. Crytzer, Brady J. 2012 Fort Pitt: A Frontier History. Charlestown, SC: History Press. Cusick, James G. 2000 Creolization and the Borderlands. Historical Archaeology 34(3): 46-55. Cutter, William Richard 1913 New England Families, Genealogical and Memorial: A Record of the Achievements of 291 Her People in the Making of Commonwealths and the Founding of a Nation. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company. D’Amato, Donald A. 2009 Warwick’s Villages: Glimpses from the Past. Charlestown, SC: The History Press. Davis, John D. 2003 Pewter at Colonial Williamsburg. Lebanon, NH: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in association with the University Press of New England. De Lotbiniere, Seymour 1977 The Story of the English Gunflint: Some Theories and Queries. The Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 9(1): 18-53. 1980 English and Gunflint Making in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. In Colonial Frontier Guns. T. M. Hamilton, ed. Pp. 154-159. Chadron, NE: The Fur Press. 1984 Gunflint Recognition. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 13(3): 206- 209. Deagan, Kathleen 1983 Spanish St. Augustine: the Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community. New York: Academic Press. Deane, William Reed 1858 Journal of Madam Knight. The Living Age Third Series, 1(2): 963–980. Deetz, James 1973 Ceramics from Plymouth, 1635-1835: The Archaeologial Evidence. In Ceramics in America. Ian M. G. Quimby, ed. Pp. 15-40. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. 1993 Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. 1996 In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. 2nd ed. New York: Anchor. Deetz, Patricia Scott, and James Deetz 292 2000 Vernacular House Forms in Seventeenth Century Plymouth Colony: An Analysis of Evidence from the Plymouth Colony Room-by-Room Probate Inventories, 1633-1685. The Plymouth Colony Archive Project. http://www.histarch.uiuc.edu/plymouth/folkhouse.htm#N_46_. Delle, James A. 1998 An Archaeology of Social Space: Analyzing Coffee Plantations in Jamaica’s Blue Mountains. New York: Plenum. 1999 “A Good and Easy Speculation”: Spatial Conflict, Collusion and Resistance in Late Sixteenth-Century Munster, Ireland. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 3 (1): 11-35. DeLucia, Christine 2012 The Memory Frontier: Uncommon Pursuits of Past and Place in the Northeast After King Philip’s War. Journal of American History 98(4): 975-997. Den Ouden, Amy E. 2005 Beyond Conquest: Native Peoples and the Struggle for History in New England. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Denevan, William M. 1992 The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82(3): 369-385. Denison, Frederic 1878 Westerly (Rhode Island) and its Witnesses, for Two Hundred and Fifty Years, 1626- 1876. Providence: J. A. & R. A. Reid. http://books.google.com. 1888 Fields Point Indian Relics. Narragansett Historical Register 6: 25-29. http://books.google.com. Derounian, Kathryn Zabelle 1998 The Publication, Promotion, and Distribution of Mary Rowlandson's Indian Captivity Narrative in the Seventeenth Century. Early American Literature 23(3): 239-261. Devens, Carol 1992 Countering Colonization: Native American Women and Great Lakes Missions, 1630- 1900. Berkeley: University of California Press. 293 Diamon, Jared M. 1998 Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W. W. Norton. Dietler, Michael 1994 “Our Ancestors the Gauls”: Archaeology, Ethnic Nationalism, and the Manipulation of Celtic Identity in Modern Europe. American Anthropologist 96(3): 584-605. Dillian, Carolyn D., Charles A. Bello, and M. Steven Shackley 2007 Crossing the Delaware: Documenting Super-Long Distance Obsidian Exchange in the Mid-Atlantic. Archaeology of Eastern North Americai 35: 93-104. 2010 Long-Distance Exchange of Obsidian in the mid-Atlantic United States. In Trade and Exchange: Archaeological Studies from History and Prehistory. Carolyn D. Dillian and Carolyn L. White, eds. Pp. 17-35. New York: Springer. Dincauze, Dena F. 1976 The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag. Peabody Museum Monographs 3. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography. Carmbridge: Harvard University. Dorr, Henry C. 1885 The Narragansetts. In Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society, 7:135-233. Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society. Douglas-Lithgow, R. A. 2001 Native American Place-Names of Rhode Island. Bedford, MA: Applewood. Downing, Antoinette 1937 Early Homes of Rhode Island. Richmond, VA: Garrett and Massie. Drake, James D. 1999 King Philip’s War: Civil War in New England 1675-1676. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Drake, Samuel Adams 1875 Nooks and Corners of the New England Coast. New York: Harper & Brothers. http://books.google.com. 294 Dunay, Neil G., Norma LaSalle, and R. Darrell MacIntire 2003 Smith’s Castle at Cocumscussoc: Four Centuries of Rhode Island History, 1678-2003. An Exhibition Celebrating the 325th Anniversary of the Construction of Smith’s Castle in 1678. Wickford R.I.: Cocumscussoc Association. Dunn, Richard S. 1956 John Winthrop, Jr., and the Narragansett Country. The William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, 13(1): 68-86. Dye, David H. 2009 War Paths, Peace Paths: An Archaeology of Cooperation and Conflict in Native Eastern North America. Lanham: AltaMira. Easton, John 1913 A Relacion of the Indyan Warre, by Mr. Easton, of Roade Isld., 1675. In Narratives of the Indian Wars, 1675-1699, Vol. 14. Charles H. Lincoln, ed. Pp. 7- 17. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Everett, Edward 1835 An Address Delivered at Bloody Brook, in South Deerfield, September 30, 1835, in Commemoration of the “Flower of Essex,” at that Spot, September 18, (O. S.) 1675. Boston: Russell, Shattuck, & Williams. Faludi, Susan 2007 America's Guardian Myths. New York Times. September 7. Online edition. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/opinion/07faludi.html. Faulkner, Alaric 1986 Maintenance and Fabrication at Fort Pentagoet 1635-1654: Products of an Acadian Armorer’s Workshop. Historical Archaeology 20(1): 63-94. Feder, Kenneth 1994 A Village of Outcasts: Historical Archaeology and Documentary Research at the Lighthouse Site. Mountain View: Mayfield. Feng, Li 2006 Landscape and Power in Early China: The Crisis and Fall of the Western Zhou 1045- 771 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, R. Brian, and Neil L. Whitehead, eds. 295 1992 War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Ferris, Neal 2009 The Archaeology of Native-Lived Colonialism: Challenging History in the Great Lakes. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Field, Edward 1902 State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the End of the Century: A History. 3 Vols. Boston: Mason. Fisher, Charles L. 1987 The Ceramics Collection from the Continental Army Cantonment at New Windsor, New York. Historical Archaeology 21(1):48-57. Fiske, Nathan 1792 An Historical Account of the Settlement of Brookfield in the County of Worcester, and its Distresses During the Indian Wars. Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society 1: 257-274. http://books.google.com. Fitts, Robert K. 1996 The Landscapes of Northern Bondage. Historical Archaeology 30(2): 54-73. 1998 Inventing New England’s Slave Paradise: Master/Slave Relations in Eighteenth-Century Narragansett, Rhode Island. New York: Garland. Floore, Pieter, and Ranjith Jayasena 2010 In Want of Everything? Archaeological Perceptions of a Dutch Outstation on Mauritius (1638-1710). Post-Medieval Archaeology 44(2): 320-340. Fontein, Joost 2006 The Silence of Great Zimbabwe: Contested Landscapes and the Power of Heritage. London: University College of London Press. Foot, Joseph I 1829 An Historical Discourse, Delivered at Brookfield, Mass. Nov. 27, 1828, the Day of the Annual Thanksgiving. Brookfield: E. and G. Merriam. Foote, Kenneth E. 1997 Shadowed Ground: America’s Landscapes of Violence and Tragedy. Austin: University 296 of Texas Press. Forbes, Jack D. 1968 Frontiers in American History and the Role of the Frontier Historian. Ethnohistory 15(2): 203-235. Fowler, William S. 1991 A Handbook of Indian Artifacts from Southern New England. Curtiss R. Hoffman, ed. Massachusetts Archaeological Society Special Publication 4. Middleborough: Massachusetts Archaeological Society. Fortescue, J. W., ed. 1899 Calendar of State Papers: Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 1685-1688. Vol. 7. London: Norfolk Chronicle Company. Frank, Caroline 2006 Tea & Trade: Porcelain from Cocumscussoc. Castle Chronicle 15(2): 1, 11-23. http://www.smithscastle.org/whats_new/castle_chron_su06.pdf. Friedman, Jonathan 1992 The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity. American Anthropologist 94(4):837-589 Fuller, Oliver Payson 1875 The History of Warwick, Rhode Island, Settlement in 1642 to the Present Time; Including Accounts of the Early Settlement and Development of Its Several Villages; Sketches of the Origin and Progress of the Different Churches of the Town, &c., &c. Providence: Angell, Burlingame & Co. Gallivan, Martin D. 2007 Powhatan’s Werowocomoco: Constructing Place, Polity, and Personhood in the Chesapeake, C.E. 1200—C.E. 1609. American Anthropologist 109(1): 85-100. Galloway, Patricia 1991 The Archaeology of the Ethnohistorical Method. In Columbian Consequences, Vol. 3. David Hurst Thomas, ed. Pp. 453-469. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 2006 Material Culture and Text: Exploring the Spaces Within and Between. In Historical Archaeology. Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, eds. Pp. 42-64. Oxford: Blackwell. 297 Gamburd, Michele Ruth, and Dennis B McGilvray 2010 “Sri Lanka’s Post-Tsunami Recovery: Cultural Traditions, Social Structures and Power Struggles.” Anthropology News 51(7): 9–11. Garvan, Anthony N. B. 1951 Architecture and Town Planning in Colonial Connecticut. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gazin-Schwartz, Amy, and Cornelius Holtorf 1999 “As long as ever I've known it...”: On Folklore and Archaeology. In Archaeology and Folklore. Amy Gazin-Schwartz and Cornelius Holtorf, eds. Pp. 2-23. New York: Routledge. Gibson, Erin 2006 “The Archaeology of Movement in a Mediterranean Landscape.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20(1): 61-87. Gillespie, Raymond 1985 Colonial Ulster: The Settlement of East Ulster, 1600-1641. Cork: Cork University Press. Given, Michael 2004 The Archaeology of the Colonized. New York: Routledge. Glassie, Henry H. 1969 Pattern in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia: A Structural Analysis of Historic Artifacts. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 1995 Tradition. The Journal of American Folklore 108(430): 395-412. 2000 Vernacular Architecture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. González-Rubial, Alfredo 2005 “The Need for a Decaying Past: An Archaeology of Oblivion in Contemporary Galacia (NW Spain).” Home Cultures 2(2): 129-152. 298 Gookin, Daniel 1836 “An Historical Account of the Doings and Sufferings of the Christian Indians in New England, in the Years 1675, 1676, 1677. Impartially Drawn by One Well Acquainted with That Affair, and Presented Unto the Right Honourable the Corporation Residing in London, Appointed by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty for Promoting the Gospel Among the Indians in America.” In Archaeologia Americana: Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society, Vol. 2:423-534. Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. Gorton, Samuel 1835 “Simplicity’s Defence Against Seven-Headed Policy.” William R. Staples, ed. Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society. Gosden, Chris 2001 “Postcolonial Archaeology: Issues of Culture, Identity, and Knowledge.” In Archaeology Theory Today. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp. 241-261. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 2004 Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present. New York: Cambridge University Press. Graves, Michael W., and C. Kēhaunani Cachola-Abad 1996 “Seriation as a Method of Chronologically Ordering Architectural Design Traits: An Example from Hawai`i.” Archaeology in Oceania 31(1): 19-32. The Greene Family in England and America with Pedigrees 1901 Boston: Privately Printed. http://www.archive.org. Greene, Welcome Arnold 1886 The Providence Plantations for Two Hundred and Fifty Years. Providence: J. A. & R. A. Reid. Grguric, Nicholas K. 2008 Fortified Homesteads: The Architecture of Fear in Frontier South Australia and the Northern Territory, ca. 1847-1885. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 4: 59-85. Grumet, Robert S. 1995 Historic Contact: Indian People and Colonists in Today’s Northeastern United States in the Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 299 Hall, Martin 1993 The Archaeology of Colonial Settlement in Southern Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 177-200. 1999 Subaltern Voices? Finding the Spaces between Things and Words. In Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge. Pedro Paulo A. Funari, Martin Hall, and Siân Jones, eds. Pp. 193-203. London: Routledge. 2000 Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake. New York: Routledge. Hamilton, Thomas Marion 1960 Additional Comments on Gunflints. The Missouri Archaeologist 22: 73-79. 1962 Indian Trade Guns. The Missouri Archaeologist 22:12-49. 1968 Early Indian Trade Guns, 1625-1775. Lawton, OK: Museum of the Great Plains. 1980 Colonial Frontier Guns. Chadron, NE: The Fur Press. Hamilton, Thomas Marion, and Kenneth O. Emery 1988 Eighteenth Century Gunflints from Fort Michilimackinac and Other Colonial Sites. Archaeological Report Series 13. Mackinac Island, MI: Mackinac Island State Park Commission. Handsman, Russell G. 2008 Landscapes of Memory in Wampanoag Country—and the Monuments upon Them. In Archaeologies of Placemaking: Monuments, Memories, and Engagement in Native North America. Patricia E. Rubertone, ed. Pp. 161-194. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Handsman, Russell G., and Trudie Lamb Richmond 1995 Confronting Colonialism: The Mahican and Schaghticoke People and Us. In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Archaeology and History in Non-Western Settings. Peter R. Schmidt and Thomas C. Patterson, eds. Pp. 87-117. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press. Harrington, Faith 1989 The Emergent Elite in Early 18th Century Portsmouth Society: The Archaeology of the Joseph Sherburne Houselot. Historical Archaeology 23 (1): 2-18. 300 Harris, William 1902 Harris to Sir Joseph Williamson, 12 August, 1676. “Harris Papers,” Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society 10. Irving Berdine Richman and Clarence S. Brigham, eds. Pp. 162–179. Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society. 1963 A Rhode Islander Reports on King Philip’s War: The Second William Harris Letter of August, 1676. Douglas Edward Leach, ed. Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society. Harris, Doug, and Paul Robinson 2011 Nipsachuck: A Place of Ceremony and War during King Philip's War. Paper presented at the Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, November 10. Harrison, Rodney 2002 “Shared Histories and the Archaeology of the Pastoral Industry in Australia.” In After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenous Past in Australia. Rodney Harrison and Christine Williamson, eds. Pp. 37–58. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. 2003 “The Magical Virtue of These Sharp Things.” Journal of Material Culture 8(3): 311. 2005 An Artefact of Colonial Desire? Kimberly Points and the Technologies of Enchantment. Current Anthropology 47(1): 63-88. Harrison, Rodney, and Christine Williamson, eds. 2004 After Captain Cook: The Archaeology of the Recent Indigenous Past in Australia. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira. Hart, Siobhan M. 2009 High Stakes: A Poly-Communal Archaeology of the Pocumtuck Fort, Deerfield, Massachusetts. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts – Amherst. Hawkes, Nathan Mortimer 1907 Hearths and Homes of Old Lynn. Lynn, MA: T. P. Nichols. Hayden, Brian, and Michael Deal 1987 The Persistence of Pre-Columbian Lithic Technology in the Form of Glassworking. 301 In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Maya. Brian Hayden, ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Hayden, Brian, and Margaret Nelson 1981 The Use of Chipped Lithic Material in the Contemporary Maya Highlands. American Antiquity 46(4): 885-898. Hazard, Caroline 1893 Thomas Hazard, Son of Robt Call’d College Tom: A Study of Life in Narragansett in the XVIIIth Century. Houghton, Mifflin and company. Hazard, Thomas R. 1879 Recollections of Olden Times: Rowland Robinson of Narragansett and His Unfortunate Daughter, with Genealogies of the Robinson, Hazard, and Sweet Families of Rhode Island. Newport, RI: John F. Sanborn. Heighton, Robert F., and Kathleen A. Deagan 1971 A New Formula for Dating Kaolin Clay Pipestems. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 6: 220–229. Henchman, Daniel 1883 Capt. Daniel Henchman to Gov. John Leverett. In The New-England Historical and Genealogical Register 38:67-68. Boston: New England Historic, Genealogical Society. Herndon, Ruth Wallis 2001 Unwelcome Americans: Living on the Margin in Early New England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Herndon, Ruth Wallis, and Ella Wilcox Sekatau 1997 The Right to a Name: The Narragansett People and Rhode Island Officials in the Revolutionary Era. Ethnohistory 44(3): 433-462. Hobsbawm, Eric J., and Terence O. Ranger (eds.) 1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press: New York. Hodder, Ian 2012 Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 302 Hodge, Christina J. 2005 Faith and Practice at an Early-Eighteenth-Century Wampanoag Burial Ground: The Waldo Farm Site in Dartmouth, Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology 39(4): 73-94. Hodges, Charles Thomas 2003 Forts of the Chieftans: A Study of the Vernacular, Classical, and Renaissance Influence on Defensible Town and Villa Plans in 17th-Century Virginia. M.A. Thesis, William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/1119 Holmes, Abiel 1826 Remains of the Old French Fort. In A Memoir of the French Protestants, who Settled at Oxford, in Massachusetts, A. D. MDCLXXXVI; with a Sketch of the Entire History of the Protestants of France. Pp. 80-82. Cambridge, MA: Hillard and Metcalf. Honerkamp, Nicholas, and Norma Harris 2005 Unfired Brandon Gunflints from the Presidio Santa Maria de Galve, Pensacola, Florida. Historical Archaeology 39(4): 95-111. Hood, J. Edward. 1996 Social Relations and the Cultural Landscape. In Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape. Rebecca Yamin and Karen Bescherer Metheny, eds. Pp. 121-146. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Hoover, Elizabeth 2006 Transfer Print Earthenwares from Cocumscussoc. Castle Chronicle 15(3):1, 10-23. http://www.smithscastle.org/whats_new/castle_chron_f06.pdf. Hopkins, Charles Wyman 1886 The Home Lots of the Early Settlers of the Providence Plantations, with Notes and Plats. Providence: Providence Press. Hoskins, W. G. 1953 The Rebuilding of Rural England, 1570-1640. Past and Present 4: 44-59. Hough, Franklin B., ed. 1858 A Narrative of the Causes Which Led to Philip’s Indian War, of 1675 and 1676, By John Easton, of Rhode Island. With Other Documents Concerning This Event in the Office of the Secretary of State of New York. Prepared from the Originals, with an 303 Introduction and Notes. Albany: J. Munsell. Howey, Meghan C. L. 2011 Colonial Encounters, European Kettles, and the Magic of Mimesis in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Century Indigenous Northeast and Great Lakes. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15(3): 329-357. Hubbard, William 1803 A Narrative of the Indian Wars in New-England, From the First Planting Thereof, in the Year 1607, to the Year 1677. Containing the Occasion, Rise and Progress of the War with the Indians, in the Southern, Western, Eastern and Northern Parts of Said Country. Danbury: Stiles Nichols. Hume, Ivor Noel 1982 Martin's Hundred. New York: Knopf. 1985 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York: Knopf. Hutchinson, Thomas 1795 The History of Massachusetts from First Settlement Thereof in 1628, Until the Year 1750. 3rd edition. Boston: Thomas Andrews. Internet Archive (13960/t22b95m0z). Hutson, Scott R., Travis W. Stanton, Aline Magnoni, Richard Terry, and Jason Craner 2007 Beyond the Buildings: Formation Processes of Ancient Maya Houselots and Methods for the Study of Non-Architectural Space. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(3): 442-473. Ingold, Tim 1993 The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25(2):152-174. Ireland, Tracy 2003 “The Absence of Ghosts”: Landscape and Identity in the Archaeology of Australia's Settler Culture. Historical Archaeology 37(1): 56-72. Isham, Norman Morrison 1914 The Memorial of the Men Who Died in the Swamp Fight. In Report on the Committe on Marking Historical Sites in Rhode Island, 64-83. Providence: E. L. Freeman. 1918 Preliminary Report to the Society of Colonial Wars of Rhode Island on the 304 Excavations at the Jireh Bull Garrison House on Tower Hill in South Kingstown. Rhode Island Historical Society Collections 11(1):2-11. Isham, Norman Morrison, and Albert Frederic Brown 1895 Early Rhode Island Houses: An Historical and Architectural Study. Providence: Preston and Rounds. Ives, Timothy H. 2011 Reconstructing the Wangunk Reservation Land System: A Case Study of Native and Colonial Likeness in Central Connecticut. Ethnohistory 58(1): 65-89. Jaffe, Eric 2010 The King's Best Highway: The Lost History of the Boston Post Road, the Route That Made America. New York: Scribner. James, Sydney V. 1975 Colonial Rhode Island: A History. New York: Scribner. 2000 The Colonial Metamorphoses of Rhode Island: A Study of Institutions in Change. Sheila L. Skemp and Bruce C. Daniels, eds. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Jamieson, Ross W. 2000 Domestic Architecture and Power: The Historical Archaeology of Colonial Ecuador. New York: Kluwer. Jayasena, Ranjith 2006 The Historical Archaeology of Katuwana, a Dutch East India Company Fort in Sri Lanka. Post-Medieval Archaeology 40(1): 111-128. Jazwa, Christopher 2011 Temporal Changes in a Precontact and Contact Period Cultural Landscape Along the Southern Rhode Island Coast. The Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes: When the Land Meets the Sea. Ben Ford, ed. Pp. 129–146. New York: Springer. Jenison, Paul B. 1976 The Availability of Lime and Masonry Construction in New England: 1630-1733. Old-Time New England 67(1-2): 21–26. Jennings, Francis 305 1976 The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. New York: Norton. Johnson, Matthew H. 1993 Rethinking the Great Rebuilding. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12(1): 117-125. Jones, Howard Mumford 1942 Origins of the Colonial Idea in England. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 85(5): 448-465. Jones, Michael Owen 1980 L.A. Add-ons and Re-dos: Renovation in Folk Art and Architecture Design. In Perspectives on American Folk Art. Ian M. G. Quimby and Scott Swank, eds. Pp. 325-363. New York: Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum. Jones, Olive R. 1986 Cylindrical English Wine and Beer Bottles 1735-1850. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History. Ottowa: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Environment Canada – Parks. . Jordan, Kurt A. 2009 Colonies, Colonialism, and Cultural Entanglement: The Archaeology of Postcolumbian Intercultural Relations. In International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, Teresita Majewski and David Gaimster, eds. Pp. 31-50. New York: Springer. Joyce, Rosemary A., and Susan D. Gillespie (eds.) 2000 Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kaufmann, J. E., and H. W. Kaufmann 2004 Fortress America: The Forts That Defended America, 1600 to the Present. Cambridge: Da Capo. Kenmotsu, Nancy A. 1990 Gunflints: A Study. Historical Archaeology 24(2): 92-124. Kent, Barry C. 306 1983 More on Gunflints. Historical Archaeology 17(2): 27-40. Kimball, Gertrude Selwyn 1912 Providence in Colonial Times. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Kimura, Birgitta 2006 Knapped Glass Tools from Konso, Southern Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 18th Biennial Meeting of the Society of Africanist Archaeologists. . Kingman, Bradford 1892 Epitaphs from Burial Hill, Plymouth, Massachusetts, from 1657 to 1892. With Biographical and Historical Notes. Brookline, MA: New England Illustrated Historical Publishing Company. Knight, Sarah Kemble 1992 The Journal of Madam Knight: A Woman’s Teacherous Journey By Horseback from Boston to New York in the Year 1704. Bedford, Massachusetts: Applewood Books. Knowles, John D. 1884 Memoir of Roger Williams, the Founder of the State of Rhode-Island. Boston: Lincoln, Edmands, and Co. Google Books, http://books.google.com. Kostro, Mark 2006 Excavating Sites Unseen: The Example of Earthfast Buildings in the Colonial Chesapeake. In Between Dirt and Discussion: Methods, Methodology, and Interpretation in Historical Archaeology. Steven N. Archer, and Kevin M. Bartoy, eds. Pp. 183-200. New York: Springer. Kupperman, Karen O. 2000 Indians and English: Facing Off in Early America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. LaCroix, Paul C. 2011 Report of a Professional and Avocational Archaeology Project in Millis, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Archaeological Society Newsletter. LaMotta, Vincent M., and Michael B. Schiffer 2002 Formation Processes of House Floor Assemblages. In The Archaeology of Household Activities. Penelope M. Allison, ed. Pp. 19-29. New York: Routledge. 307 Leach, Douglas Edward 1958 Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip’s War. New York: Macmillan. Leone, Mark P. 1988 The Georgian Order as the Order of Merchant Capitalism in Annapolis, Maryland. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Mark P. Leone and Parker Potter, Jr., eds. Pp. 235-261. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 2005 The Archaeology of Liberty in an American Capital: Excavations in Annapolis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Leone, Mark P., and Parker B. Potter, Jr. 1988 Introduction: Issues in Historical Archaeology. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., eds. Pp. 1-21. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Lepore, Jill 1998 The Name of War : King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity. New York: Knopf. Leveillee, Alan, Joseph Waller, and Donna Ingham 2006 Dispersed Villages in Late Woodland Period South-Coastal Rhode Island. Archaeology of Eastern North America 34: 71–89. Levou 1830 Tradition of the Old Garrison House. Rural Repository, New Series 7(5): 33-35. http://books.google.com. Levy, Philip 2007 Fellow Travelers: Indians and Europeans Contesting the Early American Trail. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Lewis, Kenneth E. 1984 The American Frontier: An Archaeological Study in Settlement Pattern and Process. New York: Academic Press. Lightfoot, Kent G. 1995 Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship Between Prehistoric and 308 Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 60(2): 199–217. 2005 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2006 Missions, Furs, Gold, and Manifest Destiny: Rethinking an Archaeology of Colonialism for Western North America. In Historical Archaeology. Martin Hall, and Stephen W. Silliman, eds. Pp. 272-292. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lightfoot, Kent G., and Antoinette Martinez 1995 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 471-492. Lightfoot, Kent G., Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff. 1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63(2): 199-222. Lightfoot, Kent G., Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff 1993 Native Responses to the Russian Mercantile Colony of Fort Ross, Northern California. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:159-175. Lindgren, James Michael 1995 Preserving Historic New England: Preservation, Progressivism, and the Remaking of Memory. Oxford University Press. Little, Elizabeth A. 2002 Kautantouwit's Legacy: Calibrated Dates on Prehistoric Maize in New England. American Antiquity 67(1): 109-118. Llobera, M., P. Fábrega-Álvarez, and C. Parcero-Oubiña 2011 Order in Movement: a GIS Approach to Accessibility. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(4): 843-851. Loren, Diana DiPaolo 2008 In Contact: Bodies and Spaces in the Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-century Eastern Woodlands. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Low, Setha M. 1995 Indigenous Architecture and the Spanish American Plaza in Mesoamerica and the 309 Caribbean. American Anthropologist 97(4): 748-762. Lucas, Gavin 2004 An Archaeology of Colonial Identity: Power and Material Culture in the Dwars Valley, South Africa. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. Luedtke, Barbara E. 1987 The Pennsylvania Connection: Jasper at Massachusetts Sites. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Massachusetts 48(2): 37-47. 1999 Gunflints in the Northeast. Northeast Anthropology 57: 27-43. Lyons, Claire L., and John K. Papadopoulous 2002 The Archaeology of Colonialism. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Lyneis, Margaret M. 1986 A Spatial Analysis of Anasazi Architecture, A.D. 950–1150, Moapa Valley, Nevada. Kiva 52(1): 53-74. Mallios, Seth 2005 Back to the Bowl: Using English Tobacco Pipebowls to Calculate Mean Site- Occupation Dates. Historical Archaeology 39(2): 89–104. Mandell, Daniel R. 1998 Shifting Boundaries of Race and Ethnicity: Indian-Black Intermarriage in Southern New England. The Journal of American History 85(2): 466-501. 2004 “The Indian's Pedigree” (1794): Indians, Folklore, and Race in Southern New England. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 61(3): 521-538. 2010 King Philip’s War: Colonial Expansion, Native Resistance, and the End of Indian Sovereignty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Markell, Ann 1993 Building on the Past: The Architecture and Archaeology of Vergelegen. Goodwin Series 7: Historical Archaeology in the Western Cape: 71-83. Markell, Ann, Martin Hall, and Carmel Schrire 1995 The Historical Archaeology of Vergelegen, an Early Farmstead at the Cape of Good Hope. Historical Archaeology 29(1): 10-34. 310 Martin, Calvin 1975 The Four Lives of a Micmac Copper Pot. Ethnohistory 22(2): 111-133. Martin, Susan R., ed. 1999 Wonderful Power: The Story of Ancient Copper Working in the Lake Superior Basin. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Martindale, Andrew 2009 Entanglement and Tinkering: Structural History in the Archaeology of the Northern Tsimshian. Journal of Social Archaeology 9(1): 59-91. Martindale, Andrew, and Irena Jurakic 2006 Identifying Expedient Glass Tools from a Post-contact Tsimshian Village Using Low Power (10-100x) Magnification. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 414-427. Mather, Increase 1676 A Brief History of the Warr with the Indians in Nevv-England, (From June 24, 1675, When the First English-man Was Murdered by the Indians, to August 12, 1676, When Philip, Alisa Metacomet, the Principal Author and Beginner of the Warr, Was Slain.) Wherein the Grounds, Beginning, and Progress of the Warr, Is Summarily Expressed. Together with a Serious Exhortation to the Inhabitants of That Land. Boston: John Foster. Early English Books Online. Matthews, Christopher N. 2002 An Archaeology of History and Tradition: Moments of Danger in the Annapolis Landscape. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. McBride, Kevin A. 1990 The Historical Archaeology of the Mashantucket Pequots, 1637-1900: A Preliminary Analysis. In The Pequots in Southeastern New England: The Fall and Rise of an American Indian Nation. Laurence M. Haupman, and James D. Wherry, eds. Pp. 96-116. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1994 Cultures in Transition: The Eastern Long Island Sound Culture Area in the Prehistoric and Contact Periods. Journal of Connecticut History 25(1): 5-21. 2006 Mohantic Fort: The Pequot in King Philip's War. Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory 8: 322-336. 311 McDonald, Barry 1997 Tradition as Personal Relationship. Journal of American Folklore 110(435): 47-67. McEwan, Bonnie G. 1991 San Luis de Talimali: The Archaeology of Spanish-Indian Relations at a Florida Massion. Historical Archaeology 25(3): 36-60. Melish, Joanne P. 1998 Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and “Race” in New England, 1780-1860. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Middleton, Angela 2008 Te Puna - A New Zealand Mission Station: Historical Archaeology in New Zealand. Springer, New York. Miller, Clarence E. 1972 Minerals of Rhode Island. Kingston: University of Rhode Island. Miller, William 1936 Ancient Paths to Pequot. Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society. Minnich, Mary Lovell 1896 Some Colonial Families: Fenner of Rhode Island. The American Historical Register 4: 263-268. Mitchell, W. J. T. 2002 Landscape and Power. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Monahon, Eleanore Bradford 1961 A New Look at the Jireh Bull Excavation. Rhode Island History 20(1): 13-24. Moran, Joe 2004 History, Memory, and the Everyday. Rethinking History 8(1): 51-68. More Historical Facts About the Rhode Island Mace 2009 Gaspee Days Committee History Files. http://gaspee.com/Maceinfo.pdf. Moreland, John 2006 Archaeology and Texts: Subservience or Enlightenment. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 135-151. 312 Mrozowski, Stephen A. 1981 Field Report for the Jireh Bull Site Excavation, 1981. Manuscript on file, Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence. Mrozowski, Stephen, A., Holly Herbster, David Brown, and Katherine L. Priddy 2009 Magunkaquog Materiality, Federal Recognition, and the Search for a Deeper History. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13(4): 430-463. Murray, Tim 2004 The Archaeology of Contact in Settler Societies. Cambridge University Press. Mytum, Harold 2010 Ways of Writing in Post-Medieval and Historical Archaeology: Introducing Biography. Post-Medieval Archaeology 44(2): 237-254. Naum, Magdelena 2010 Re-emerging Frontiers: Postcolonial Theory and Historical Archaeology of the Borderlands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17(2): 101-131. Newell, Margaret Ellen 2003 The Changing Nature of Indian Slavery in New England, 1670-1720. In Reinterpreting New England Indians and the Colonial Experience. Colin G. Calloway and Neal Salisbury, eds. Pp. 106-136. Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts. Nowlin, Bryan J. 2005 Conflicts in Sovereignty: The Narragansett Tribe in Rhode Island. American Indian Law Review 30(1): 151-164. O’Brien, Jean M. 1997 Dispossession by Degrees: Indian Land and Identity in Natick, Massachusetts, 1650- 1790. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2010 Firsting and Lasting: Writing Indians Out of Existence in New England. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Oliver, Paul 1987 Dwellings: The House Across the World. Oxford: Phaidon. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 313 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. New York: Plenum 2010 Twenty-first Century Historical Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 18(2): 111-150. Panja, Sheena 2002 The “Third Space”: The Creation of Archaeological Knowledge in Post- Independence India. Studies in History 18(1): 1-22. Pauketat, Timothy R. 2012 Questioning the Past in North America. In The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology. Timothy R. Pauketat, ed. Pp. 3-17. New York: Oxford University Press. Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1972 Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 127-150. Parsons, Usher 1861 Indian Names of Places in Rhode-Island. Providence: Knowles, Anthony & Co. http://archive.org. Patterson, Alistair G. 2008 The Lost Legions: Culture Contact in Colonial Australia. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Paynter, Robert 1982 Models of Spatial Inequality: Settlement Patterns in Historical Archaeology. New York: Plenum. 2000 Historical Archaeology and the Post-Columbian World of North America. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(3): 169-217. Pedrotta, Victoria, and Vanesa Bagaloni 2005 Looking at Interethnic Relations in the Southern Border Through Glass Remains: The Nineteenth-Century Pampa Region, Argentina. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 9(3): 177-193. Peterson, Harold L. 1956 Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole, Co. Plane, Ann Marie 314 2000 Colonial Intimacies: Indian Marriage in Early New England. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Plimoth Plantation 2011 Colonial Archaeology at Plimoth Plantation. Plimoth Plantation. http://www.plimoth.org/learn/collections-archaeology/colonial-archaeology. Porteous, J. Douglas, and Sandra Eileen Smith, eds. 2001 Domicide: The Global Destruction of Home. Ithaca: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Porter, Colin A. 2009 Gravestones and King Philip's War: Commemoration in Seventeenth-Century New England. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Potter, Elisha Reynolds 1835 The Early History of Narragansett; with an Appendix of Original Documents, Many of Which Are Now for the First Time Published. Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, Vol. 3. Providence: Marshall, Brown and Company. Prickett, Nigel 1981 The Archaeology of a Military Frontier: Taranaki, New Zealand, 1860-1881. PhD Dissertation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/1514. Pumphrey, Margaret B. 1910 Two Brass Kettles. In Pilgrim Stories. Pp. 228-232. New York: Rand McNally & Company. Quinn, David B. 1965 The Elizabethans and the Irish. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Rappoport, Amos 1969 House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rose-Redwood, Reuben, Derek Alderman, and Maoz Azaryahu 2010 Geographies of Toponymic Inscription: New Directions in Critical Place-Name Studies. Progress in Human Geography 34(4): 453-470. 315 Reid, Elizabeth 1987 The Jireh Bull Site Reanalyzed: The Formation of a Seventeenth-Century Frontier. MA Thesis, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Reiser, Christine N. 2010 Rooted in Movement: Spatial Practices and Community Persistence in Native Southwestern New England. PhD Dissertation, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Reynolds, Cuyler 1911 Hudson-Mohawk Genealogical and Family Memoirs: A Record of Achievements of the People of the Hudson and Mohawk Valleys in New York State, Included Within the Present Counties of Albany, Rensselaer, Washington, Saratoga, Montgomery, Fulton, Schenectady, Columbia and Greene. Vol. 2. New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company. Rhode Island Historical Society 1925 Report Upon the Objects Excavated at the Jireh Bull House Now in the Museum of the Rhode Island Historical Society. Rhode Island Historical Society Collections 18(3): 83-90. Rice, Alanna J. 2010 Renewing Homeland and Place: Algonquians, Christianity, and Community in Southern New England, 1700-1790. PhD Dissertation, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. http://hdl.handle.net/1974/6089. Richman, Irving Berdine 1902 Rhode Island: Its Making and Its Meaning; a Survey of the Annals of the Commonwealth from Its Settlement to the Death of Roger Williams, 1636-1683. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Richter, Daniel K. 2001 Facing East From Indian Country: A Native History of Early America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rider, Sidney S. 1897 The Great Forgeries Connected with the Sachem’ Deed to Williams: An Examination of Mr. Paine’s Denial. Book Notes: Historical, Literary and Critical 14(1): 1-7. 316 1904 The Lands of Rhode Island as They Were Known to Caunounicus and Miantunnomu when Roger Williams Came in 1636. Providence: Sidney S. Rider. 1907 Stamper’s Hill. Book Notes: Historical, Literary and Critical 25 (7):55. Ritchie, Duncan 2002 Late Woodland Lithic Resource Use and Native Group Territories in Eastern Massachusetts. In A Lasting Impression: Coastal, Lithic, and Ceramic Research in New England Archaeology. Jordan Kerber, ed. Pp. 105-124. Westport, CT: Praeger. Robin, Cynthia, and Nan A. Rothschild 2002 Archaeological Ethnographies: Social Dynamics of Outdoor Space. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2): 159-172. Robbins, Lawrence H., Alec C. Campbell, and Michael L. Murphy 2004 Retouched Glass Dated to the Late 19th Century at Toteng, Botswana. Nyame Akuma 62: 11-18. Robinson, Paul A. 1982 Letter to Nina Zannieri, October 29, 1982. In the archaeological site file from the Jireh Bull House Site (RI-926). Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission, Providence, RI. 1990 The Struggle Within: The Indian Debate in Seventeenth-Century Narragansett Country. PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Binghamton. 1994 A Narragansett History from 1000 BP to the Present. In Enduring Traditions: the Native Peoples of New England. Laurie L. Weinstein, ed. Pp. 70-90. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Robinson, Paul A., and Charlotte C. Taylor 2000 Heritage Management in Rhode Island: Working with Diverse Partners and Audiences. In Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society: Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past. Francis P. McManamon and Alf Hatton, eds. Pp. 107-119. New York: Routledge Rodning, Christopher B. 2007 Building and Rebuilding Cherokee Houses and Townhouses in Southwestern North Carolina. In The Durable House: House Society Models in Archaeology. Robin A. Beck, Jr. Center for Archaeological Investigations, eds. Occasional Paper No. 317 35. Carbondale: Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University. Rodriguez-Alegria, Enrique 2005 Eating Like an Indian: Negotiating Social Relations in the Spanish Colonies. Current Anthropology 46: 551-573. Rosenberry, Lois K. M. 1962 The Expansion of New England: The Spread of New England Settlement and Institutions to the Mississippi River, 1620-1865. New York: Russell & Russell. Rogers, Horatio, George Moulton Carpenter, and Edward Field, eds. 1892-1915 The Early Records of the Town of Providence. 21 vols. Providence: City Council of Providence. Rowlandson, Mary 1682 The Soveraignty & Goodness of God, Together, With the Faithfulness of His Promises Displayed; Being a Narrative Of the Captivity and Restauration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. Commended by Her, to All That Desires to Know the Lords Doings to, and Dealings with Her. Especially to Her Dear Children and Relations, Written by Her Own Hand for Her Private Use, and Now Made Publick at the Earnest Desire of Some Friends, and for the Benefit of the Afflicted. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Samuel Green. Early English Books Online, http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home. 1770 A Narrative of the Captivity, Sufferings and Removes of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, who was taken Prisoner by the INDIANS with several others; and treated in the most barbarous and Cruel manner by those vile Savages; With many other remarkable Events during her Travels. Boston: Z. Fowle. Early English Books Online, http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home. 1791 A Narrative of the Captivity, Sufferings, and Removes, of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, Who was taken Prisoner by the Indians; with several others, and treated in the most barbarous and cruel Manner by those vile Savages; With many other remarkable Events during her Travels. Boston: Thomas and John Fleet. Early English Books Online, http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home Rubertone, Patricia E. 1989 Archaeology, Colonialism and 17th-Century Native America: Towards an Alternative Interpretation.” In Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. Robert Layton, ed. Pp. 32-45. Boston: Unwin Hyman. 318 1994 Grave Remembrances: Enduring Traditions Among the Narragansett. Connecticut History 35(1): 22-45. 2000 The Historical Archaeology of Native Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 425-446. 2001 Grave Undertakings: An Archaeology of Roger Williams and the Narragansett Indians. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 2008 Memorializing the Narragansett: Placemaking and Memory Keeping in the Aftermath of Detribalization. In Archaeologies of Placemaking: Monuments, Memories, and Engagements in Native North America. Patricia E. Rubertone, ed. Pp. 195-216. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. 2009a Cocumscussoc, North Kingstown, Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay Area: An Ancient and Historic Indian and Euro-American Site. In Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia. Francis P. McManamon, Linda S. Cordell, Kent G. Lightfoot, and George R. Milner, eds. Pp. 126-129. Westport, CT: Greenwood. 2009b Queen's Fort, North Kingstown, Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay Area: Historic Seventeenth-Century Indian Fort Site. In Archaeology in America: An Encyclopedia. Francis P. McManamon, Linda S. Cordell, Kent G. Lightfoot, and George R. Milner, eds. Pp. 129-131. Westport, CT: Greenwood. 2012 Archaeologies of Colonialism in Unexpected Times and Unexpected Places. In Decolonizing Indigenous Histories: Exploring Prehistoric/Colonial Transitions in Archaeology. Maxine Oland, Siobhan M. Hart, and Liam Frink, eds. Pp. 267-281. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Rubtertone, Patricia E., and Robert K. Fitts 1990 Historical Archaeology at Cocumscussoc: A Pilot Study for Local Preservation Planning. Unpublished report on file at Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission, Providence, Rhode Island. 1991 Cocumscussoc Archaeological Site—National Register Nomination. On file, Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission, Providence, RI. Rubertone, Patricia E., and Charlotte C. Taylor 1992 Historical Archaeology at Cocumscussoc: Report on the 1991 Excavations. Unpublished manuscript, Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage 319 Commission, Providence, RI. Ruppel, Timothy, Jessica Neuwirth, Mark P. Leone, and Gladys-Marie Fry 2003 Hidden in View: African Spiritual Places in North American Landscapes. Antiquity 77(296): 321-335. Ryzewski, Krysta 2006 Glass Bottles from Cocumscussoc: Witnesses to Hidden Histories. Castle Chronicle 15(4): 1, 6-12. Sainsbury, John A. 1975 Indian Labor in Early Rhode Island. New England Quarterly 48(3): 378-393. Salisbury, Neal 1982 Manitou and Providence: Indians, Europeans, and the Making of New England, 1500-1643. New York: Oxford University Press. Saltonstall, Nathaniel 1833 The Present State of New-England with Respect to the Indian War, Wherein Is an Account of the True Reason Thereof, (as Far as Can Be Judged by Men), Together with Most of the Remarkable Passages That Have Happened from the 20th of June, till the 10th of November 1675. Faithfully Composed by a Merchant of Boston and Communicated to His Friend in London. Ed. Samuel G. Drake. Boston: N. Dickinson. 1913 A True but Brief Account of Our Losses Sustained Since This Cruel and Mischievous War Began. In Narratives of the Indian Wars, 1675-1699. Charles H. Lincoln, ed. Pp. 98-99. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Sarmento, Joao 2011 Fortifications, Postcolonialism and Power: Ruins and Imperial Legacies. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2010 The Eastern Archaic, Historicized. Lanham, MD: AltaMira. Sayers, Daniel O. 2007 Landscapes of Alientation: An Archaeological Report of Excursions in the Great Dismal Swamp. Transforming Anthropology 15(2): 149-157. 320 Schiffer, Michael B. 1996 Formation Processes in the Archaeological Record. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Schrire, Carmel 1995 Digging Through Darkness: Chronicles of an Archaeologist. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Schrire, Carmel, and Janette Deacon 1989 The Indigenous Artefacts from Oudepost I, a Colonial Outpost of the VOC at Saldanha Bay, Cape. The South African Archaeological Bulletin 44(150): 105-113. Schultz, Eric B., and Mike Tougias 1999 King Philip’s War: The History and Legacy of America’s Forgotten Conflict. Woodstock, VT: Countryman. Scott, Douglas D. 2009 Studying the Archaeology of War: A Model Based on the Investigation of Frontier Military Sites in the American Trans-Mississippi West. International Handbook of Historical Archaeology.. David Gaimster and Teresita Mejewski, eds. Pp. 299-317. New York: Springer. Scott, Douglas D., and Richard A. Fox, Jr. 1987 Archaeological Insights into The Custer Battle: An Assessment of the 1984 Field Season. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Scott, Heidi V. 2004 A Mirage of Colonial Consensus: Resettlement Schemes in Early Spanish Peru. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(6): 885-899. Scott, James C. 1998 Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Selleck, William Edwin 1912 Selleck and Peck Genealogy. Chicago: Privately Printed. Shurtleff, Harold R. 1967 (1939) The Log Cabin Myth: A Study of the Early Dwellings of the English Colonists in North America. Samuel Eliot Morison, ed. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith. 321 Silliman, Stephen W. 2001 Theoretical Perspectives on Labor and Colonialism: Reconsidering the California Missions. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20(4): 379-407. 2004 Lost Laborers in Colonial California: Native Americans and the Archaeology of Rancho Petaluma. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North America. American antiquity: 70(1): 55–74. 2006 Struggling with Labor, Working with Identities. In Historical Archaeology. Martin Hall and Stephen W. Silliman, eds. Pp. 147–166. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2008 The ‘Old West’ in the Middle East: U.S. Military Metaphors in Real and Imagined Indian Country. American Anthropologist 110(2): 237-247. 2009 Change and Continuity, Practice and Memory: Native American Persistence in Colonial New England. American Antiquity 74(2): 211-230. 2010 Indigenous Traces in Colonial Spaces: Archaeologies of Ambiguity, Origin, and Practice. Journal of Social Archaeology 10(1): 28-58. Simmons, William S. 1983 Red Yankees: Narragansett Conversion in the Great Awakening. American Ethnologist 10(2): 253-271. 1986 Spirit of the New England Tribes: Indian History and Folklore. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Slotkin, Richard 1973 Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sluyter, Andrew 2002 Colonialism and Landscape: Postcolonial Theory and Applications. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Smith, Kevin P., Amy Smith, and Nina Hellebrekers 2012 New Evidence for the Paleoindian Occupation of the Narragansett Basin, Rhode 322 Island and Massachusetts, USA. Working paper. http://www.academia.edu/1225972/New_evidence_for_the_Paleoindian_occupati on_of_the_Narragansett_Basin_Rhode_Island_and_Massachusetts_USA_revised_ draft_. Snead, James E. 2011 The “Secret and Bloody War Path”: Movement, Place and Conflict in the Archaeological Landscape of North America. World Archaeology 43(3): 478-492. Snead, James E., Clark L. Erickson, and J. Andrew Darling, eds. 2009 Preface. In Landscapes of Movement: Trails, Paths, and Roads in Anthropological Perspective. Pp. xvi-xviii. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Soja, Edward W. 1996 Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-Imagined Places. Blackwell: Cambridge, MA. South, Stanley A. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Stevenson, Christopher M., Emily Bikowski, Hector Neff, Michael Orliac, and Colin Pendleton 2007 Investigations into the European Provenance of Historic Gunflints from Fort Christanna, Virginia Through Trace Element Chemistry. Archaeology of Eastern North America 35: 49-62. St. George, Robert Blair 1982 “Set Thine House in Order”: The Domestication of the Yeomanry in Seventeenth- Century New England. New England Begins: The Seventeenth Century. Jonathan L. Fairbanks and Robert Trent, eds. Vol. 3, pp. 159-187. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. 1990 Bawns and Beliefs: Architecture, Commerce, and Conversion in Early New England. Winterthur Portfolio 25(4): 241-287. 1998 Conversing by Signs: Poetics of Implication in Colonial New England Culture. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Staples, William R. 1843 Annals of the Town of Providence, from Its First Settlement, to the Organization of the 323 City Government, in June, 1832. Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society 5. Providence: Knowles and Vose. Steadman, Sharon R. 1996 Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the Foundations. Journal of Archaeological Research 4(1): 51-93. Stein, Gil 2002 From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Interregional Interaction. American Anthropologist 104(3): 903-916. Stern, Julia 1997 To Relish and To Spew: Disgust as Cultural Critique in The Journal of Madam Knight. Legacy 14(1): 1-12. Stevanović, Mirjana 1997 The Age of Clay: The Social Dynamics of House Destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16(4): 334-395. Stevenson, Marc G. 1982 Toward an Understanding of Site Abandonment Behavior: Evidence from Historic Mining Camps in the Southwest Yukon. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 237-265. Stoler, Ann Laura 1989 Rethinking Colonial Categories: European Communities and the Boundaries of Rule. Comparative Studies in Society and History 31(1): 134-161. Stone, Edwin M. 1857 The Life and Recollections of John Howland, Late President of the Rhode Island Historical Society. Providence: George Whitney. http://archive.org. Stone, Lyle M. 1974 Fort Michilimackinac, 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier. East Lansing: The Museum, Michigan State University. Thayer Memorial Library 2012 Pageant Exhibition Panel 16: Mary Rowlandson Taken Away, Lancaster Massachusetts 1912 Fourth of July Pageant Exhibition, Thayer Memorial Library, Lancaster Massachusetts. Digital Treasures: A Central and Western Massachusetts 324 Digital Library Project. http://dlib.cwmars.org/cdm4/images/full_size/lancaster/31.jpg. Thomas, Nicholas 1991 Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thomas, Peter A. 1985 Cultural Change on the Southern New England Frontier, 1630-1665. In Cultures in Contact: The European Impact on Native Cultural Institutions in Eastern North America, A.D. 1000-1800. William W. Fitzhugh, ed. Pp. 131-161. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Thompson, Francis M. 1904 History of Greenfield: Shire Town of Franklin County, Massachusetts. Vol. 1. Greenfield, MA: T. Morey & Son. Thorbahn, Peter F. 1988 Where are all the Late Woodland Villages in Southern New England? Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 49(2): 46-57. Torrey, Clarence Almon. 1985 New England Marriages Prior to 1700. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co. Tripp, George H. 1904 The Town of Fairhaven in Four Wars. Old Dartmouth Historical Sketches 6: 9-151. http://www.whalingmuseum.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Old%20Dartmouth %20Historical%20Sketches_No.%206.pdf Trumbull, J. Hammond 1852 The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1665-1678: With the Journal of the Council of War, 1675 to 1678; Transcribed and Edited, in Accordance with a Resolution of the General Assembly, with Notes and an Appendix. Hartford: F. A. Brown. Turgeon, Laurier 1997 The Tale of the Kettle: Odyssey of an Intercultural Object. Ethnohistory 44(1): 1- 29. Turner, Frederick J. 325 1914 The First Official Frontier of the Massachusetts Bay. Cambridge: John Wilson. 1920 The Frontier in American History. New York: Krieger. Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher 2001 The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Creation of an American Myth. New York: Random House. Updike, Daniel Berkeley 1937 Richard Smith: First English Settler of the Narragansett Country, Rhode Island, With a Series of Letters Written by His Son Richard Smith, Jr., to Members of the Winthrop Family and Notes on Cocumscussuc, Smith’s Estate in Narragansett. Boston: Merrymount Press. Updike, Wilkins 1842 Memoirs of the Rhode Island Bar. Boston: T. H. Webb. 1907 A History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett, Rhode Island Including a History of Other Episcopal Churches in the State. Daniel Goodwin, ed. Second. Vol. 2. Boston: D. B. Updike. Upton, Dell 1979 Architectural Change in Colonial Rhode Island: The Mott House as a Case Study. Old Time New England 69(3-4): 18-33. 1983 The Power of Things: Recent Studies in American Vernacular Architecture. American Quarterly 35(3): 262-279. 1996 Ethnicity, Authenticity, and Invented Traditions. Historical Archaeology 30(2): 1-7. 1997 Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia. New Haven: Yale University. Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach 1986 Introduction. In Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture. Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach, eds. Pp. xiii–xxiv. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Vaughan, Alden 1995 New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675. 3rd ed. Norman: 326 University of Oklahoma Press. Verhoeven, Marc 2000 Death, Fire and Abandonment. Archaeological Dialogues 7(1): 46-65. Voss, Barbara L. 2008a The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2008b Gender, Race, and Labor in the Archaeology of the Spanish Colonial Americas. Current Anthropology 49(5): 861-893. W. C. W. 1920 Elisha P. Fenner. The Sabbath Recorder, January 26: 123-124. Google Books, http://books.google.com. Waller, Joseph N. 2000 Late Woodland Settlement and Subsistence in Southern New England Revisited: The Evidence from Coastal Rhode Island. North American Archaeologist 21(2): 139-153. Washington, Dorothy, ed. 1921 Rhode Island Land Evidences: Abstracts, 1648-1696. Vol. 1. Providence: Rhode Island Historical Society. Internet Archive, http://archive.org. Wax, Darold D. 1967 The Demand for Slave Labor in Colonial Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania History 34(4): 331–345. Weddle, Meredith Baldwin 2001 Walking in the Way of Peace: Quaker Pacifism in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press. Welch, E. S. 1964 Archaeology of the R. M. Site. Unpublished manuscript on file at Plimoth Plantation, Plymouth, Massachusetts. Wheeler, Thomas 1676 A Thankefull Remembrance of Gods Mercy to Several Persons at Quabaug or Brookfield: Partly in a Collection of Providences About Them, and Gracious 327 Appearances for Them: And Partly in a Sermon Preached By Mr. Edward Bulkley, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Concord, Upon a Day of Thanksgiving, Kept by Divers for Their Wonderfull Deliverance There. Cambridge, MA: Samuel Green. Early English Books Online, http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home. Whipple, Charles, Jr., and Barbara R. Carroll 2003 The Louquisset Brothers: Samuel, Eleazer, & William, Sons of Captain John Whipple. Whipple Website. http://www.whipple.org/charles/louquisset/index.html. White, Devin A., and Sarah B. Barber 2012 Geospatial Modeling of Pedestrian Transportation Networks: a Case Study from Precolumbian Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(8): 2684-2696. Whitefield, Edwin 1882 The Homes of Our Forefathers. Boston: Whitefield and Crocker. Internet Archive, http://archive.org. Whittaker, John C. 2001 “The Oldest British Industry”: Continuity and Obsolescence in a Flintknapper's Sample Set. Antiquity 75: 382-390. Whitthoft, John 1966 A History of Gunflints. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 36:12-49. Wilcoxen, Charlotte 1987 Dutch Trade and Ceramics in American in the Seventeenth Century. Albany, NY: Albany Institute of History and Art. Wilkie, Laurie A. 1996 Glass-Knapping at a Louisiana Plantation: African-American Tools? Historical Archaeology 30(4): 37-49. Williams, Roger 1643 A Key into the Language of America. London: Gregory Dexter. Early English Books Online. 1988 The Correspondence of Roger Williams. Glenn W. LaFantasie, Robert S. Cocroft, and Bradford F. Swam, eds. Providence: The Rhode Island Historical Society by Brown University Press/University Press of New England. 328 Winer, Margot 2001 Landscapes, Fear and Land Loss on the Nineteenth-Century South African Colonial Frontier. In Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place. Barbara Bender and Margot Winer, eds. Pp. 257–272. New York: Berg. Winer, Margot, and James Deetz 1990 The Transformation of British Culture in the Eastern Cape, 1820–1860. Social Dynamics 16(1): 55-75. Wolf, Michaela 1999 The Third Space in Postcolonial Representation. Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era. Sherry Simon and Paul St-Pierre, eds. Pp. 127-146. University of Ottawa Press: Ottawa, Ontario. Woodall, J. Ned, Stephen T. Trage, and Roger W. Kirchen 1997 Gunflint Production in the Monti Lessini, Italy. Historical Archaeology 31(4): 15- 27. Woodward, Carl Raymond 1971 Plantation in Yankeeland: The Story of Cocumscussoc, Mirror of Colonial Rhode Island. Chester, CT: Pequot Press. Wurst, Louann 1999 Internalizing Class in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 33(1): 7-21. Zannieri, Nina 1982 Jireh Bull Blockhouse Historic Site (RI 926). National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. On file at the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission, Providence, Rhode Island. Zelner, Kyle F. 2009 A Rabble in Arms: Massachusetts Towns and Militiamen During King Philip’s War. New York: New York University Press.