TECHNICAL REPORT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
HANOVER MARKETPLACE PROJECT AREA
AREA 1 SITE (19-PL-749)
AREA 2 SITE (19-PL-750)
Hanover, Massachusetts
William Begley
Joseph N. Waller, Jr.
Suzanne Cherau
Submitted to:
Carpionato Corporation
1414 Atwood Avenue
Johnston, Rhode Island 02919
Submitted by:
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
26 Main Street
Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860
PAL Report No. 488
February 1998
(revised July 2013)
PAL Publications
CARTOGRAPHERS
Dana M. Richardi/Jane Miller
GIS SPECIALIST
Jane Miller
GRAPHIC DESIGN/PAGE LAYOUT SPECIALISTS
Gail M. Van Dyke
MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT
PAL conducted archaeological site examinations of the Area 1 (19-PL-749) and Area 2 (19-PL-750) sites
and archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site within the Hanover Marketplace in Hanover,
Massachusetts. Recovery and analysis of the Area 1 Site’s archaeological content contributed to our
knowledge of pre-contact Native American settlement, resource use, and technology in eastern
Massachusetts. Archaeological investigations resulted in the recovery of a range of Early Archaic, Middle
Archaic, Late Archaic, and Transitional pre-contact Native American cultural materials and the
documentation of numerous archaeological features that included refuse pits, stone platforms/hearths, and
lithic workshops. Cultural features were radiocarbon dated to the Middle Archaic (7740 ± 150 B.P.) and
Late Archaic (4600 ± 90 B.P.; 3540 ± 80 B.P.; 3510 ± 90 B.P.; and 3290 ± 80 B.P.) Periods. Limited
archaeological data indicates the site was only occasionally occupied for very brief periods of time during
the Woodland Period.
Archaeological data collected from the site during site examination and data recovery field investigations
was useful for addressing research questions developed for the Hanover Marketplace project and to
mitigate the effects that commercial construction would have on the Area 1 Site.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. i
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1
Project History .................................................................................................................................. 1
Archaeological Data Recovery .......................................................................................................... 6
Project Personnel .............................................................................................................................. 7
Disposition of Project Data................................................................................................................ 7
2. RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 8
Site Examination ............................................................................................................................... 8
Determining the basic attributes of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites .................................................... 8
Assessing the age or cultural affiliation of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites ......................................... 9
Studying lithic raw material use and assessing source areas ......................................................... 9
Examining wetland resource exploitation at the Area 1 and Area 2 sites ...................................... 9
Data Recovery Program .................................................................................................................. 10
Research Orientation and Questions .......................................................................................... 10
3. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 20
Current Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 20
Bedrock Geology ............................................................................................................................ 21
Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Drainage Patterns ............................................................................................................................ 22
Postglacial Vegetative Sequence for Eastern Massachusetts............................................................. 22
Vegetation Types ...................................................................................................................... 23
4. NATIVE AMERICAN LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT ......................................................... 25
PaleoIndian Period (13,000–10,000 B.P.) ........................................................................................ 25
The Archaic Period (10,000–3000 B.P.) .......................................................................................... 27
Early Archaic Period (10,000–7500 B.P.).................................................................................. 27
Middle Archaic Period (7500–5000 B.P.) .................................................................................. 28
Late Archaic Period (5000–3000 B.P.) ...................................................................................... 29
Transitional/Terminal Archaic Period (3600–2500 B.P.) ........................................................... 30
The Woodland Period (3000–450 B.P.) ........................................................................................... 31
Early Woodland Period (3000–1600 B.P.) ................................................................................. 31
Middle Woodland Period (1600–1000 B.P.) .............................................................................. 31
Late Woodland Period (1000–450 B.P.) .................................................................................... 32
Contact Period (450 - 300 B.P.) ....................................................................................................... 33
5. METHODOLOG .......................................................................................................................... 35
Fieldwork Data Collection Techniques ............................................................................................ 35
Archaeological Site Examination .............................................................................................. 35
Archaeological Data Recovery Program - Area 1 Site ............................................................... 36
Laboratory Processing and Specialized Analyses ............................................................................. 37
Processing ................................................................................................................................ 37
Cataloguing .............................................................................................................................. 37
Specialized Analysis of Cultural Materials ................................................................................ 37
PAL Report No. 488
iii
Table of Contents
Curation .................................................................................................................................... 40
Public Education Component .................................................................................................... 40
6. RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS .............................................. 42
Results of the Archaeological Site Examination............................................................................... 42
Area 1 Site ................................................................................................................................ 42
Area 2 Site ................................................................................................................................ 50
Archaeological Data Recovery - Area 1 Site (19-PL-749) ................................................................ 50
S5W10 Concentration Area ....................................................................................................... 53
Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area .................................................................................... 66
Charcoal ................................................................................................................................... 94
7. RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES ............................................................... 97
Petrographic and Geochemical Analysis .......................................................................................... 97
Depositional History ....................................................................................................................... 98
Early Archaic Occupation ......................................................................................................... 99
Middle Archaic Occupation .................................................................................................... 100
Late Archaic Occupation......................................................................................................... 101
Transitional Archaic Occupation ............................................................................................. 102
Middle Woodland Occupation................................................................................................. 103
8. SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................. 104
Evaluation of Archaeological Data ................................................................................................ 104
Stated Goals/Data Collection .................................................................................................. 104
Assessment of Research Questions ................................................................................................ 106
Research Question 1: What was the extent and nature of Late Archaic Period
use of the Area 1 Site? Does the data conform to the general regional model? ......................... 106
Research Question 2: What information does the Area 1 Site contain on the transition
between the Archaic and Woodland Period? ............................................................................ 107
Research Question 3: What is the nature and extent of wetland resource exploitation at
the Area 1 Site, and how does this reflect changes in the environment around 4000
to 3000 years ago? .................................................................................................................. 108
Research Question 4: What was the relationship of the site to Late Woodland/Contact
Period core areas of settlement to the south at Pembroke Ponds and to the north around the
Boston Basin, and did this orientation extend back to the Late/Transitional Archaic Period? .... 109
Research Question 5: How does the lithic assemblage at the Area 1 Site reflect the pattern
of resource use and settlement, and what can this reveal about economic systems in the upper
North River drainage? ............................................................................................................. 111
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 112
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 115
APPENDICES
A CATALOG OF CULTURAL MATERIAL RECOVERED, AREA 2 SITE, SITE
EXAMINATION ......................................................................................................................... 125
B CATALOG OF CULTURAL MATERIAL RECOVERED, AREA 1 SITE, SITE
EXAMINATION ......................................................................................................................... 129
iv PAL Report No. 488
Table of Contents
C CATALOG OF CULTURAL MATERIAL, AREA 1 SITE, DATA RECOVERY
PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 149
D AREA 1 SITE LITHIC METRICS ............................................................................................ 235
E RADIOCARBON RESULTS...................................................................................................... 251
F
FLORAL REMAINS .................................................................................................................. 257
G PETROGRAPHIC RESULTS .................................................................................................... 263
PAL Report No. 488 v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1.
Location of Hanover within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts .................................. 1
Figure 1-2.
Hanover Marketplace on the Hanover, USGS topographic quadrangle ............................ 2
Figure 1-3.
Areas of archaeological testing, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and
Jones 1992) .................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1-4.
Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 1, Hanover Marketplace
(source: Missio and Jones 1992) ..................................................................................... 4
Figure 1-5.
Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 2, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio
and Jones 1992) .............................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2-1.
Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 1 Site ............................ 11
Figure 2-2.
Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 2 Site ............................ 13
Figure 3-1.
Location of the Hanover Marketplace within the Seaboard Lowland
physiographic province of southern New England (source: Fenneman 1938)................ 20
Figure 3-2.
Late Pleistocene glacial advance in southeastern Massachusetts .................................... 22
Figure 4-1.
The Hanover Marketplace in relation to core areas of seventeenth-century
Native American settlement within southeastern Massachusetts
(source: MHC 1982)..................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6-1.
Plan and profile of Area 1 Site Feature 1 in test pit N45E0............................................ 45
Figure 6-2.
Plan and profile of Area 1 Site Feature 2 in test pit N55E0............................................ 46
Figure 6-3.
Profile of archaeological site examination EU 3 showing Feature 2............................... 48
Figure 6-4.
Locations of archaeological test units, Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site ................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 6-5.
Locations of archaeological test units, S5W10 Quadrant Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site ................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 6-6.
Contour map showing the relatively densities of Native American lithic materials
within the Northeast Quadrant and S5W10 concentration areas, Area 1 Site.................. 54
Figure 6-7.
Drills from the Area 1 Site (a. EU 2-SE, 40-45 cmbs; b. EU 9-NW, 25-30 cmbs;
c. EU20-NE, 10-15 cmbs)............................................................................................. 55
Figure 6-8.
Arkose biface from EU 2, S5W10 Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site ............... 55
vi PAL Report No. 488
List of Figures
Figure 6-9.
Atl atl weights from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace (a. EU 1-NW, 30-35
cmbs; b. EU 20-NE, 15-20 cmbs) ................................................................................. 59
Figure 6-10.
Cobble tool/stone weight from EU 2, Area 1 Site .......................................................... 59
Figure 6-11.
Lithic Materials from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site................................ 60
Figure 6-12.
Lithic chipping debris by depth from the Site S5W10 Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site ................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 6-13.
Depths of cultural features from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace ......................... 62
Figure 6-14.
Plan of cultural features from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site.................... 64
Figure 6-15.
Profile of cultural features from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site ................ 65
Figure 6-16.
Bifurcate-based projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 8-NE, 40-45 cmbs; b. fragments from EU 8 and EU 11;
c. EU 16-South Half, 35-40 cmbs) ................................................................................ 69
Figure 6-17.
Representative Middle Archaic Period projectile points from the Northeast
Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 9-NE, 30-35 cmbs; b. EU 7-NE,
30-35 cmbs; c. EU 11-North half, 15-20 cmbs; d. EU 7-SE, 25-30 cmbs; e. EU 10-NW,
45-50 cmbs; f. EU 23-SW, 30-35 cmbs) ....................................................................... 70
Figure 6-18.
Representative Brewerton-eared projectile points from the Northeast
Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU10-NE, 25-30 cmbs;
b. EU11-North half, 50-55 cmbs) .................................................................................. 71
Figure 6-19.
Small Stemmed projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU19-NE, 10-15 cmbs; b. EU21-East half, 20-25 cmbs;
c. EU 9-NW, 25-30 cmbs; d. EU13-North half, 45-50 cmbs; e. EU11-South half,
30-35 cmbs; f. EU10-NE, 25-30 cmbs) ......................................................................... 71
Figure 6-20.
Squibnocket stemmed projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 7-SE, 30-35 cmbs; b. EU 7-NW, 15-20 cmbs; c. E 09-SW,
10-15 cmbs; d. EU19-SE, 105-110 cmbs; e. EU14-NW, 20-25 cmbs; f. EU 7-NW,
25-30 cmbs). ............................................................................................................... 72
Figure 6-21.
Squibnocket triangle projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU21-East half, 10-15 cmbs; b. EU 7-SW, 15-20 cmbs;
c. EU15-East half, 20-25 cmbs; d. EU20-NW, 15-20 cmbs) .......................................... 72
Figure 6-22.
Representative Atlantic type projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU20-SE, 20-25 cmbs; b. EU 8-NE, 15-20
cmbs; c. EU 8-SW, 40-45 cmbs; d. EU 8-NE, 20-25 cmbs; e. EU10-SW,
10-15 cmbs; f. EU23-NW, 20-25 cmbs; g. EU 8-NE, 20-25 cmbs). ............................... 74
PAL Report No. 488 vii
List of Figures
Figure 6-23.
Representative Susquehanna Broad projectile points from the Northeast
Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 6-NW, 20-25 cmbs; b. EU 7-NE,
15-20 cmbs; c. EU12-NW, 10-15 cmbs; d. EU12-NW, 20-25 cmbs; e. EU 8-NW,
20-25 cmbs) ................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 6-24.
Wayland Notched projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU14-SW, 5-10 cmbs; b. EU 8-SE, 10-15 cmbs; c. EU14-NE,
10-15 cmbs) ................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 6-25.
Orient Fishtail projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site (a. EU15-West half, 10-15 cmbs; b. EU18-East half, 15-20 cmbs;
c. EU19-SE, 5-10 cmbs; d. EU 7-NW, 20-25 cmbs ....................................................... 75
Figure 6-26.
Jack’s Reef Corner Notched projectile point from data recovery EU 12 at the
Area 1 Site ................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 6-27.
Representative bifaces from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site (a. EU12-NW, 25-30 cmbs; b. EU13-South half, 25-30 cmbs;
c. EU11-North half, 35-40 cmbs; d. EU14-NW, 20-25 cmbs; f. EU09-SE, 15-20
cmbs; f. EU10-SW, 15-20 cmbs; g. EU06-SE, 30-35 cmbs; h. EU07-SE, 30-35
cmbs; i. EU10-35-40 cmbs; j. EU19-SW, 25-30 cmbs ................................................... 77
Figure 6-28.
Representative large bifaces from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site (a. EU17-South half, 25-30 cmbs; b. EU14-NW, 20-25 cmbs;
c. EU08-SW, 45-50 cmbs) ............................................................................................ 77
Figure 6-29.
Stone pestle from EU 20, Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site ............. 78
Figure 6-30.
Lithic chipping debris materials from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site. ......................................................................................................... 79
Figure 6-31.
Lithic chipping debris by depth from the Site Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site .......................................................................................................... 80
Figure 6-32.
Plan of Native American cultural features 5, 6, and 8 in EUs 6, 8, and 11, Area 1
Site............................................................................................................................... 82
Figure 6-33.
Feature 5 stratigraphic profile of EU 6, Area 1 Site ....................................................... 83
Figure 6-34.
Features 6 and 8 stratigraphic profiles in EU 8, Area 1 Site ........................................... 84
Figure 6-35.
Plan of Feature 9 in EUs 12, 14, 20, and 22, Area 1 Site ............................................... 85
Figure 6-36.
Plan of Feature 10 at 20 cmbs in EU 21, Area 1 Site ..................................................... 86
Figure 6-37.
Plan of Feature 11 in EU 13, Area 1 Site. ...................................................................... 88
Figure 6-38.
Plan of Features 12 and 14 in EU 23, Area 1 Site .......................................................... 89
Figure 6-39.
Plan of Feature 2 at 30 cmbs in EUs 18 and 19 and site examination EU3,
Area 1 Site ................................................................................................................... 91
viii PAL Report No. 488
List of Figures
Figure 6-40.
Plan of Feature 13 data recover EU19 and site examination EU3, Area 1 Site ............... 92
Figure 6-41.
East and west profile of EU19 showing Feature 2 and Feature 13, Area 1 Site............... 93
PAL Report No. 488 ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1.
Native American Cultural Chronology for Southern New England ................................ 26
Table 6-1.
Pre-contact Native American Cultural Material by Depth, Area 1 Site,
Hanover Marketplace, Site Examination ....................................................................... 43
Table 6-2.
Radiocarbon Results from Selected Features Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace. .......... 47
Table 6-3.
Pre-contact Native American Cultural Material by Depth, Area 2 Site,
Hanover Marketplace, Site Examination ....................................................................... 50
Table 6-4.
Vertical Distribution of Chipping Debris Recovered during Archaeological
Data Recovery of the Area 1 Site. ................................................................................. 57
Table 6-5.
Distribution of Chipping Debris by Size Range Recovered during the Data
Recovery Program of the Area 1 Site. ........................................................................... 61
Table 6-6.
Inventory of Cultural Features Identified within the S5W10 Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site Data Recovery Program............................................................................... 63
Table 6-7.
Distribution of Native American stone tools from the Area 1 Site, Hanover
Marketplace ................................................................................................................. 67
Table 6-8.
Projectile and projectile point fragments from the Area 1 Site, Hanover
Marketplace ................................................................................................................. 68
Table 6-9.
Nineteenth and twentieth century cultural materials recovered during the
archaeological site examination of the Area 1 and Area 2 Sites, Hanover
Marketplace ................................................................................................................. 95
Table 6-10.
Post-contact period cultural materials recovered during data recovery
archaeological investigations of the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace ......................... 96
Table 6-11.
Data recovery and site examination radiocarbon dates from the Area 1
Site, Hanover Marketplace............................................................................................ 96
Table 7-1.
Lithic Samples and Artifacts Examined by Petrographic and Geochemical
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 98
Table 7-2.
Trace Element Data for Artifact and Debitage Samples ................................................. 99
Table 7-3.
Results of Petrographic Thin Section Analysis ............................................................ 100
Table 7-4.
Vertical Distribution of Diagnostic Projectile Points ................................................... 100
x PAL Report No. 488
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
PAL (The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.) conducted archaeological site examinations of the Area 1
(19-PL-749) and Area 2 (19-PL-750) sites and archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site within the
Hanover Marketplace in Hanover, Massachusetts (Figure 1-1). The Carpionato Corporation is overseeing
the development of the Hanover Marketplace, which is located west of Columbia Road (Route 53) near
Hanover Four Corners (Figure 1-2). The 85,000 square foot (ft2) retail center is located on a 15.4-acre
parcel of land and includes a 50,393 ft2 Shaw’s Supermarket and an attached 9,800 sq ft2 CVS pharmacy.
Development also included construction of a large parking lot, an access drive adjacent to Columbia Road
(Route 53), and a landscaped buffer zone.
Figure 1-1. Location of Hanover within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Project History
Intensive (locational) archaeological survey (950 CMR 70) of the Hanover Marketplace was conducted
by the Office of Public Archaeology (OPA) at Boston University in 1991 (Missio and Jones 1992).
Subsurface archaeological testing was conducted on three knolls designated as Areas 1, 2, and 3, which
were considered sensitive for containing archaeological deposits (Figure 1-3). Archaeological testing
resulted in the recovery of 205 pieces of pre-contact Native American cultural material from Area 1 and
five pieces of stone chipping debris from Area 2 (Figures 1-4 and 1-5). Pre-contact Native American
PAL Report No. 488 1
Chapter One
Figure 1-2. Hanover Marketplace on the Hanover, USGS topographic quadrangle.
2
PAL Report No. 488
Figure 1-3. Areas of archaeological testing, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and Jones 1992).
Introduction
PAL Report No. 488 3
Chapter One
Figure 1-4. Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 1, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and
Jones 1992).
4
PAL Report No. 488
Introduction
Figure 1-5. Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 2, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and
Jones 1992).
PAL Report No. 488 5
Chapter One
cultural materials recovered from Area 1 within the Hanover Marketplace project area included quartz,
argillite, felsite, and chert chipping debris and three lithic cores (Missio and Jones 1992). The Area 1 and
Area 2 sites were considered potentially eligible for listing in the State or National Registers of Historic
Places and the OPA concluded with a recommendation for archaeological site examination of the Area 1
and Area 2 sites.
PAL conducted archaeological site examination of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites, Hanover Marketplace, in
June and July 1992 under archaeological permit No. 1242 issued by the Massachusetts Historical
Commission/State Archaeologist. Archaeological site examination of the Area 1 Site resulted in the
recovery of pre-contact Native American cultural materials (lithic debitage, chipped and ground/pecked
stone tools, and Native American clay pot sherds) and cultural features (hearth and pit feature) from a
2,750 square meter (m2) knoll adjacent and immediately west of Columbia Road within the southeastern
limits of the Hanover Marketplace project area. Charcoal collected from two cultural deposits at the site
produced Late/Transitional Archaic Period radiocarbon ages of 3290±80 and 3540±80 B.P. (before
present). Archaeological data contained at the Area 1 Site indicated the site was eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and D, and PAL recommended to the project
proponents that mitigation alternatives (avoidance, preservation in place, or an archaeological data
recovery program) be considered to minimize the effects construction would have on this significant
archaeological resource. The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) concurred with PAL’s
assessment and recommendations for the Area 1 Site.
The Area 2 Site is located northwest of the Area 1 Site on a sparsely wooded T-shaped knoll, just north of
the wetland system associated with Iron Mine Brook (see Figure 1-3). Gentle to moderate slopes are
located north and east of the knoll top, while sleep slopes are located to the south and west.
Archaeological site examination resulted in the recovery of 41 pieces of chipping debris and the
base/midsection of a stone drill from a 375 m2 area. Morphological attributes of the drill suggest that it
may be a reworked Neville-like projectile point that dates to the Middle Archaic Period (ca. 7500–5000
B.P.). The Area 2 Site yielded few cultural materials and modest archaeological data and was determined
not to be eligible for listing in the National Register. Consequently, no additional archaeological
investigations were recommended for the Area 2 Site.
Archaeological Data Recovery
Cultural data contained at the Area 1 Site were determined to have the potential to contribute significant
new information concerning pre-contact Native American settlement and land use within the North River
drainage area of southeastern Massachusetts. The categories of data recovered from site during the
preceding intensive and site examination surveys indicated the site was eligible for inclusion in the
National Register under Criteria A and D: the site is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history, and that it would be likely to yield information important
to prehistory or history (NPS National Register Criteria for Evaluation [36 CFR 60]).
A meeting with representatives of the Carpionato Corporation, the MHC, and PAL discussed methods for
avoiding and mitigating adverse impacts to the Area 1 Site following archaeological site examination of
the Area 1 and Area 2 sites. Project proponents determined that construction of the access road and
associated grading could not be redesigned to avoid impacts to an approximate 80 ft x 480 ft section of
the Area 1 Site. Accordingly, an archaeological data recovery program (950 CMR 71.05(a); 36 CFR
800.9(b)(1)) was developed and implemented at the Area 1 Site to mitigate the adverse effects project
construction would have on this National Register-eligible property.
The Carpionato Corporation contracted with PAL to conduct archaeological data recovery at the Area 1
Site within the Hanover Marketplace project area. Fieldwork for the project was completed in June 1993
6
PAL Report No. 488
Introduction
under Massachusetts State Archaeologist’s permit No. 1274 and in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 9, Section 26C-27C, as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988 and MEPA
(301 CMR 11). Archaeological data recovery involved the excavation and examination of roughly 10
percent of the total site area. Partial excavation is consistent with the MHC’s current policy.
Archaeological materials and artifacts were returned to PAL’s laboratory facility in Pawtucket, Rhode
Island for cleaning, cataloging, and analysis.
Project Personnel
Archaeological site examination and data recovery of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites, Hanover Marketplace,
was overseen by Suzanne Cherau (Principal Investigator) and implemented by William R. Begley (Project
Archaeologist) and Laurie Pearce and Dana Richardi (Project Assistants). Craig Chartier, Beth P. Miller,
William Brett, Richard Savignano, Mark Feibusch, and Chip Mizelle (Archaeological Technicians)
assisted in the fieldwork. Donna Raymond (Laboratory Supervisor) directed laboratory processing and
oversaw flotation and the floral/faunal analyses. Lithic analysis was conducted by Daniel Dietch, Steve
Willan, and William R. Begley under the supervision of Duncan Ritchie (Senior Archaeologist). Cultural
materials were cataloged by Monika Bolino and William R. Begley. University of Rhode Island geologist
O. Donald Hermes and Duncan Ritchie conducted petrological and X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) study of
lithic materials recovered at the Area 1 Site. Dana Richardi prepared the graphics presented in this report.
Disposition of Project Data
All project information (i.e., field recording forms, maps, cultural materials, photographs) is currently on
file at PAL, 26 Main Street, Pawtucket, Rhode Island. PAL serves as a temporary curation facility until
such time as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts designates a permanent state repository.
PAL Report No. 488 7
CHAPTER TWO
RESEARCH DESIGN
Collection of archaeological data is guided by theoretical frameworks that define the kinds of data to be
recovered, enable the appropriate formulation of research questions, and specify which variables in the
natural and social environment have the greatest explanatory value for furthering an understanding of
events or larger-scale processes of the past. The archaeological record of any site is the result of a
complex interplay between human behaviors, which resulted in the intentional/unintentional discard of
artifacts in archaeological contexts, and post-depositional natural processes such as erosion, animal
activity, and freeze/thaw cycles that act upon the distributions of discarded cultural materials and the
archaeological record of a site. It is expected that systematic excavation of sites, the recovery of artifacts,
and the interpretation of the recovered materials based on their spatial arrangements can be used to
illuminate and illustrate past human behaviors. Archaeological studies at the Area 1 and Area 2 sites
proceeded under the assumption that the material record of the sites and the distribution and types of
material remains recovered from them resulted from human behaviors that were patterned by concepts of
cultural or social correctness, modified by post-depositional disturbances.
Site Examination
The goal of an archaeological site examination is to evaluate the eligibility of a site or sites for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places. This determination is assisted by collecting information on a
site’s boundaries, physical integrity, density, structure, complexity, and age and the ability of the site to
produce information useful for answering archaeological research questions of regional scientific or
historical importance and to place the site in relation to other Native American sites in the area.
Site examination within the Hanover Marketplace was designed to address four aspects of the of the Area
1 and Area 2 sites. The research design focused on assessing the physical attributes (e.g. size, age,
content, integrity, function, etc.) of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites and understanding them within the context
of local and regional land use models and assess their ability to provide new insights into pre-contact
Native American occupation in southeastern Massachusetts. Specific goals and questions addressed by
the archaeological site examination included:
Determining the basic attributes of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites
Intensive (locational) archaeological survey of the Hanover Marketplace identified concentrations of
Native American cultural materials within the southeastern (Area 1) and northwestern (Area 2) sections of
the development. The integrity of cultural deposits recovered from each of these knolls appeared good as
neither of the knolls appears to have been historically plowed. The majority (64 percent) of Native
American cultural material was recovered between 0 and 25 centimeters (cm) below the ground surface
(cmbs) from the A Horizon at the Area 1 Site. Four of the five flakes from the Area 2 Site were also
recovered from the A Horizon. A notable concentration of Native American cultural material was
identified along the eastern edge of the Area 1 knoll top, just west of Columbia Road.
The initial objective of the site examination was to determine the horizontal limits and vertical extant of
the cultural deposits at both the identified Area 1 and Area 2 sites. This was accomplished by excavating
test pits organized in a 5 meter (m) coordinate grid across each of the knoll tops. Test pit excavation
8 PAL Report No. 488
Research Design
demonstrated that the Area 1 Site continued south of the knoll (Figure 2-1). Several sizable borrow pits
along with associated earth piles were present at the southwestern corner of the site. The knoll atop of
which the Area 1 Site was located evidently extended to the northeast prior to being impacted and
truncated by the construction of Columbia Road (Route 53). Presently, the northeastern site boundary is
characterized by an extremely steep slope downward to Columbia Road. Area 2 Site boundaries were
defined by sterile test pits excavated at a 5m interval around intensive pits that produced Native American
cultural materials (Figure 2-2). The west side of the Area 2 Site is heavily eroded and has been impacted
by gravel mining and grading associated with the construction of the recycling facility to the west (Figure
2-1).
In additional to determining site boundaries, test pit excavation also assisted with assessing site integrity,
identifying artifact concentrations, and evaluating whether the sites were structurally simple (few lithic
concentration areas) or indicated a more complex set of activities (e.g., resource acquisition, processing
and food storage, domestic occupation, etc.).
Assessing the age or cultural affiliation of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites
Prior to archaeological site examination, the ages of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites were unknown. One of
the goals of the site examination was recover temporally or culturally diagnostic cultural materials and/or
locate carbon-bearing features that would permit radiocarbon dating and assessment of the ages of the two
sites.
Studying lithic raw material use and assessing source areas
Stone chipping debris and lithic cores recovered from the Area 1 and Area 2 sites during the intensive
survey indicated the majority of the lithic materials used in the manufacture of chipped-stone tools were
readily derived from the nearby area. Few pieces of non-locally available chert were also recovered from
the Area 1 Site. It was the expectation that additional cores or other lithic artifacts recovered during the
site examination would provide information on raw material source area and whether these materials were
initially extracted from nearby bedrock outcrops and transported to the sites as quarry blanks or if cobbles
derived from local tills served as sources of stone used in chipped stone tool manufacture. It was expected
that presumed that the parent material for lithic artifacts recovered from the sites could be determined
through comparisons of the Area 1 and Area 2 site assemblages with volcanic materials known to outcrop
in eastern Massachusetts (i.e. Boston basin, Blue Hills, Lynn, Mattapan, or Attleboro). Such a study
would provide information necessary to understanding the social processes of trade and exchange and/or
pre-contact Native American patterns of movement.
Examining wetland resource exploitation at the Area 1 and Area 2 sites
The Area 1 and 2 sites are each located on sandy, well-drained knolls adjacent to wetlands that are part of
the large North River drainage area. A large scale survey within the adjacent Taunton River drainage
basin demonstrated that numerous Native American archaeological sites dating from about 9000 B.P. to
about 500 B.P. tend to be located in proximity to wetlands (Thorbahn 1982). For example, occupation and
resource exploitation of wetland areas has been a recognized pattern of Small Stemmed Tradition land
use. Nevertheless, while the exploitation of wetland resources appears to have been important through the
pre-contact past into the seventeenth century and beyond, archaeological research suggests that wetlands
may have been particularly important during the PaleoIndian and Early Archaic periods (Dincauze 1980;
Forrest 1999; Jones and Forrest 2003; Nicholas 1991; Simon 1991). Intensive exploitation of these
wetland systems during the late Pleistocene/early Holocene may have correlated with a period of
exception plant and animal resource diversity.
PAL Report No. 488 9
Chapter Two
Archaeological site examination of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites was expected to locate cultural materials,
features, and material evidence for the types of resources being exploited in this wetland setting. The
combination of temporal and subsistence data would contribute information on changing land use patterns
around freshwater swamps and perhaps provide some insight into what resources were being targeted and
for what purposes.
Data Recovery Program
Following the archaeological site examination, the Area 1 Site was determined eligible for inclusion in
the National Register. Construction impacts to the Area 1 Site could not be avoided and an archaeological
data recovery program was developed to mitigate the adverse effects project construction would have on
the site. Dr. Dena Dincauze has stated (1980:31) that the first priority for research in the Northeast is
problem definition, followed by selecting the “means” and developing a research design by which to
address these problems, and finally implementing the appropriate data recovery strategies to collect these
data. This outline remains the basic approach to archaeological inquiry in the region.
Archaeological data recovery is the “systematic removal of the scientific, prehistoric, historic, and/or
archaeological data that provides an historic property with its research or data value” (36 CFR Part 66). In
the process of carrying out a data recovery program, archaeological sites are excavated, the significant
data are collected and analyzed and the important information is disseminated. Because elements of a site
are destroyed through the course of archaeological investigation, the data recovery plan included
methodologies that would manage anticipated discoveries and provided for the processing and curation of
cultural materials after their removal from their environmental and cultural contexts. Cultural materials as
well as field notes, drawings, photographs, and other records generated by the archaeological
investigation were properly stored to prevent loss of information. Specific field and research strategies
were used to carry out the recovery of significant data and to analyze and synthesize the results.
Research Orientation and Questions
The research questions developed for the site examination presented above focused on examining the
internal site structure and configuration of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites and began to address
archaeological themes of local and regional import. The Area 1 Site was determined to have the potential
to contribute significant new information concerning pre-contact Native American settlement and land
use within the North River drainage area of southeastern Massachusetts.
The research design formulated for the Area 1 Site data recovery program evolved from those initially
developed for the site examination. Issued addressed by the data recovery program focused on studying
patterns of Native American land use, resource acquisition, wetland exploitation, and the formation of
ancient Native American territories within the combined Indian Head River/North River/Taunton River
watershed of southeastern Massachusetts especially for the Late/Transitional Archaic Period (see below).
Research Topic 1: Late Archaic Period Use of the Area 1 Site
Pre-contact Native American archaeological sites in southeastern Massachusetts and nearby Rhode Island
are variable in size, content, and internal characteristics. Such variability is likely accounted for by
differences in site function, duration of occupation, size of occupying groups, and the frequency of re-use
of a location. River margins and interior swamps were typically re-occupied over time sometimes
resulting in a broad distribution of archaeological materials and features (Dewar and McBride 1992).
Sites that were repeatedly occupied over thousands of years oftentimes contain evidence of changes in
Native American land use and resource acquisition within a specific region.
10
PAL Report No. 488
Research Design
Figure 2-1. Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 1 Site.
PAL Report No. 488 11-12
Figure 2-2. Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 2 Site.
Research Design
PAL Report No. 488 13
Chapter Two
The fourth millennium B.P. has long been recognized as a period of environmental stabilization
(Dincauze 1974, 1975). The Holocene environment contained supported a variable and diverse natural
resource base (small- to medium-sized mammals, reptiles, flora, hard nut species, etc.) available for
exploitation. By the Middle Archaic Period (ca. 7500 to 5000) group territory size had begun to shrink
with regional Native American territories beginning to be established (Dincauze 1976, 1980). The gradual
reduction of territorial range and the circumscription of populations with defined territories may have
been partly responsible for the increased re-use of certain productive environmental areas. Changes in the
logistical organization of social groups may also have been partly responsible for the re-occupation of
those areas having the greatest environmental productivity and the increased visibility of some of those
sites (Thorbahn 1982).
Peter Thorbahn’s (1982) work along the I-495 roadway corridor in the Taunton River Drainage of
southeastern Massachusetts has demonstrated that river margins and large wetlands were targeted for
repeated settlement during the Late/Transitional Archaic period (ca. 5000 to 2500 B.P.) resulting in dense
concentrations of cultural materials and features. Archaeological study of the Bay Street I site (19-BR-56)
indicated the site was intensively occupied between 4300 and 3200 years ago. Here, Small Stemmed
projectile points were recovered along with Vinette 1-type ceramics in a feature radiocarbon dated to
3715±180 B.P. (Cox 1982). Archaeological investigations at the nearby Canoe River West site in Norton
unearthed a series of large burnt rock pavements or platforms used in resource processing with associated
Transitional Archaic Orient Fishtail and other Susquehanna Tradition artifacts (Simon 1982). Similarly,
large, complex pits and hearth features at the Newcombe Street Site suggested several episodes of
reoccupation dating to the Late Archaic (Thorbahn 1982). Stemmed Tradition occupations are the most
frequently archaeological component on similar riverine and wetland setting campsites in Hanover and
the surrounding area. This is evident at such sites as Site 19-PL-549 located on the southern shore of
Indian Head River, and Site 19-PL-512 located along the North River in Norwell. Similar patterns of
Late/Transitional Archaic resource acquisition and camping along river and wetland margins are known
from other drainages in eastern Massachusetts.
The Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace, is located on a broad knoll originally bordered by feeder streams
and wetlands associated with Third Herring Brook to the east, Iron Mine Brook to the west, and wetlands
that form the headwaters of these streams to the north. Given the environmental situation and condition of
the Area 1 Site, patterns of Late/Transitional Archaic Period land use and settlement outlined above were
expected to be contained at the site. This position was partially supported by categories of data collected
from the site during the preceding intensive and site examination archaeological surveys. Quartz Small
Stemmed and Squibnocket Stemmed projectile points and radiocarbon ages of 3290±80 and 3540±80 B.P.
from charcoal indicated the Area 1 Site contained a significant Late Archaic Small Stemmed lithic
tradition occupation. An absence of Laurentian Tradition artifacts (i.e. Brewerton, Vosburg, Otter Creek)
suggested the Area 1 Site was not occupied much before 4000 years ago. Chipped stone manufacturing
waste, lithic tools (projectiles and net weight/sinker), faunal remains, burnt rock platform, and disposal pit
suggested the occupants of the site engaged in various activities focused on the acquisition and processing
of terrestrial and riverine resources.
One hope of the data recovery program was to identify the full range and complexity of human behaviors
that occurred on the site by studying the depositional history and patterns of the Area 1 Site. This was
proposed to be accomplished through a thorough analysis of stone tools and the distribution of lithic
materials and features. Hand excavation and radiocarbon dating would also assist in determining if other,
less visible archaeological components were present at the site. For example, additional archaeological
study might allow for reconciling whether the two pre-contact Native American clay pot sherds from the
site were Late Archaic or Woodland Period in age. The manufacture of ceramic vessels in southern New
England is typically attributed to the Early Woodland Period (ca. 3000 B.P.). However, the recovery of
Vinette I type ceramic sherds from proximity to archaeological deposits radiocarbon dated to ca. 3700
14
PAL Report No. 488
Research Design
B.P. at the Bay Street I Site (see Cox 1982) necessitates the need to critically evaluate this common
assumption concerning the beginnings of ceramic production in the Northeast. The Area 1 Site ceramic
assemblage following the site examination was interpreted as representing either early ceramic production
and pottery use at the site dating to the Late Archaic Period or represented evidence for subsequent
occupation of the site dating to the Woodland Period.
Specific research questions posited for the archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site associated with
Research Topic 1 included:
• Was the Area 1 Site recurrently used during the Late Archaic Period like other sites in the greater
Taunton drainage basin of southeastern Massachusetts?
• Does this occupational/depositional sequence conform to the general patterns of known Late
Archaic settlement and resource acquisition in the North River Area (e.g. frequent re-use of
riverine/wetland site locations)?
• Is it possible to reconcile the age of the Native American pottery recovered from the Area 1 Site?
Research Topic 2: Transition from Archaic to Woodland Period at the Area 1 Site
Quartz was frequently used to manufacture Late Archaic Small Stemmed Tradition and Squibnocket
Complex projectile points in southern New England (see Ritchie 1969, 1971). Dr. Kevin A. McBride
(1984) argued for the lower Connecticut River Valley of Connecticut that the Small Stemmed or Narrow
Point Tradition employed an efficient quartz cobble stone tool manufacturing technology. A quartz Small
Stemmed and two quartz Squibnocket Stemmed projectile points and an associated high density of quartz
debitage was recovered from the northeast section of the Area 1 Site during the archaeological site
examination. These projectile points, in addition to the two radiocarbon dates of 3290±80 B.P. and
3540±80 B.P. from the site during the site examination suggested that the Area 1 Site was most
intensively occurred during the Late Archaic Period. The recovery of two Native American clay pot
sherds, one of which was recovered in associated with the burnt rock platform Feature 02, suggested
however that the site may once again have been occupied during the Early or Middle Woodland periods.
The recovery and identification of Late Archaic and suspected Early Woodland Period cultural materials
and features at the Area 2 Site suggested a possibility for studying the Archaic to Woodland transition in
Massachusetts. The nature of Native American land use and settlement evidently began to change
following the adoption of ceramic technology approximately 3000 years ago (Ritchie 1980; Snow 1980).
Early Woodland Period occupations, however, are generally underrepresented in the regional
archaeological record. An apparent underrepresentation of Early Woodland sites in the regional
archaeological database may stem from a difficulty in determining what constitutes diagnostic artifact
assemblages for the period (Juli and McBride 1984). The recovery of ceramic sherds and lithic debitage,
as well as, the identification of a burnt rock platform, fire pit, and possible living floor within a localized
section of the northeast site area suggested a possibility that additional cultural deposits useful to studying
technology and subsistence strategies dating to the Archaic/Woodland Period transition would be
unearthed during the archaeological data recovery program.
Specific research questions posited for the archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site associated with
Research Topic 2 included:
• Is there evidence for Late Archaic, Transitional Archaic, and Early Woodland occupation of the
Area 1 Site?
• What does the Area 1 Site data say about land use and resource acquisition for these periods?
PAL Report No. 488 15
Chapter Two
• Do the observed patterns at the Area 1 Site “fit” the observed patterns of Native American riverine
use in southeastern Massachusetts?
Research Topic 3: Wetland Resource Exploitation at the Area 1 Site
Regional archaeologists have long recognized a correlation between wetland settings and pre-contact
Native American archaeological sites (Hasenstab 1991; Nicholas 1991). Wetlands provide both a home
and breeding habitat for mammals, reptiles, fish, and fowl and sources of freshwater. Nicholas (1991)
identifies five reasons that explain the correlation between wetland resources and archaeological site
selection in the Northeast:
1) Resource Type: a wide variety of consumable or otherwise useable resources are supported by
wetland systems;
2) Seasonality: large, heterogeneous wetland areas on average contain a greater number of
perennially available resources than either lowland riverine or interior upland settings;
3) Resource productivity: given wetlands are highly productive ecosystems that contain
comparatively easy access to the resources supported by them;
4) Species diversity: large wetlands contain a wide range of plant and animal species, while smaller
wetlands tend to be more homogeneous;
5) Resource reliability: wetlands tend to provide consistently reliable and predictable vegetal foods,
over time.
The study of the relationship between the Area 1 Site and the surrounding wetland ecology had the
potential to provide new insight into the cognitive choices that went into Native American site selection
during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. Selection of the Area 1 Site for settlement by
Late/Transitional Archaic peoples likely was correlated with specific wetland habitat factors such as
resource type and diversity. Burnt rock platform Feature 02 partially investigated at Area 1 during the site
examination was hypothesized to represent an area where fish, meat, and plants procured from the nearby
Iron Mine Brook and associated wetland system were processed. This supposition was bolstered by the
recovery of a charred amaranth seed during flotation of soil sampled from the feature.
Other sites in the Taunton River drainage contained burnt rock features dating to the Late/Transitional
Archaic Period similar to those exposed at the Area 1 Site. On such feature was recently exposed
overlying a deep pit at the Riverside 2 site situated along the west bank of the Nemasket River (Waller
2009). The Canoe River West Site contained at least 26 burnt rock platforms in close proximity to each,
some of which were superimposed over deep pits. Burnt rock features suggest that high bulk processing,
likely associated with the natural resources available in the wetland and stream setting, repeated occurred
at this location (Simon 1982).
The data recovery investigation of the Area 1 Site was designed to further examine the burnt rock
platform, locate similar features, examine their spatial distribution, and analyze any associated floral and
faunal remains associated with them. The data might provide clues as to what natural food resources were
being exploited by the site’s occupants and exploitation of these resources may have changed over time.
Food remains could also be used to assess the season or seasons of site occupation and use.
Specific research questions posited for the archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site associated with
Research Topic 3 included:
16
PAL Report No. 488
Research Design
• What is the nature and extent of wetland resource exploitation at the Area 1 Site?
• What does this say about the environment for the period ca. 4000 to 3000 years ago?
• To what degree does the observed pattern fit the general model of Late/Transitional Archaic and
Woodland periods wetland exploitation?
• Was the Area 2 Site occupied year-round or only seasonally with occupations scheduled around
seasonally available resources?
• Did this pattern of resource use change over time?
• How does the pattern of site occupation, resource use, and social organization in this near-wetland
system compare with those at other similar river/wetland and non-wetland environmental settings
in the region?
Research Topic 4: Relationship of the Area 1 Site to Late Woodland/Contact Period Core
Areas
The Area 1 Site is located along Iron Mine Brook near where the Herring River meets both the Indian
Head (southwest) and North (northeast) rivers. Access to the Area 1 Site from the North River would also
have been possible via Third Herring Brook. Southeastern Massachusetts’ river systems provided primary
avenues for Native American transportation in addition to sponsoring a wide range of plant and animal
species readily available for exploitation by the region’s indigenous peoples. The combined Indian
Head/Herring/North River system and its tributaries likely provided the occupants of the Area 1 Site with
access to larger settlement areas located within the mosaic of ponds in present-day Pembroke and Halifax.
The North River and its tributaries flow generally northeast to empty into Massachusetts Bay at the
Scituate-Marshfield boundary. These rivers and streams likely facilitated transportation between the
region’s interior (Pembroke Ponds Complex) and the coastal zone located in the North River/Plymouth
area. The Pembroke Ponds were a focus of Massachusett Indian settlement and subsistence by the early
seventeenth century core with a major native settlement at Mattakeeset. A coastal core of Wampanoag
Indians, which extended from the North River south to Plymouth Bay, included a major settlement at
Patuxet (MHC 1982). Hanover and the Area 1 Site appear to have been peripheral to the interior and
coastal core settlement areas around 400 years ago. On the contrary, the upper North River drainage and
Hanover area was included within an area of intense Native American land use during the
Late/Transitional Archaic Periods. The database of known archaeological sites however, suggests a sharp
decline in occupation and resource use of interior wetland and river settings during the latter Woodland
and Contact periods. An apparent shift away from interior systems may be tied to a combination of factors
such as increased settlement focused on the coastal and reliance on coastal resources such as shellfish,
finfish, and marine mammals, other changes in subsistence strategies (introduction of horticulture), and
changes in socio-political and community structure.
Archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site was presumed to assist with understanding the geocultural position of Hanover during the Late Archaic, Woodland, and perhaps Contact periods. By
examining the site’s age(s), material and feature content, and their densities, patterns of Native American
settlement and resource exploitation and an assessment of the site’s situation with a “core” or “a
peripheral” territory for the periods between 4000 and 300 years ago might be better understood. Specific
research questions proposed for the archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site associated with
Research Topic 4 included:
• What is the relationship of the Area 1 Site to established core areas of settlement to the south at
Pembroke Ponds and to the north around the Boston Basin?
• Was the present-day Hanover vicinity situated in a geographical transition zone between
Woodland and Contact Period territories?
PAL Report No. 488 17
Chapter Two
• Does this orientation extend backwards in time to the Late and Transitional Archaic periods?
Research Topic 5: Lithic Resource Use at the Area 1 Site
Archaeological site examination indicated that the Area 1 Site contained a high density of lithic materials
most of which was located within the northeastern limits of the site. Lithic materials recovered from the
site included chipped and ground stone tools (projectile points, scrapers, drills, net sinker or weight,
whetstone), hammerstones or cores, and chipped stone tool manufacturing waste. Lithic materials
recovered from the site included volcanics (rhyolites and felsites), quartz, argillite, hornfels and jasper
and quartzite. Volcanics dominate the Area 1 lithic assemblage. Area 1 Site volcanic materials included
Hingham red, Sally Rock, Saugus jasper, Mattapan, and Attleboro red varieties. Lithic materials were
macroscopically identical to parent materials that outcrop at the Mattapan Volcanic and Blue Hills
Igneous complex of the Boston Basin and the Lynn Volcanic Complex north of Boston in Massachusetts’
Northshore area.
Quartz was the second most frequent lithic material recovered from the Area 1 Site accounting for 42
percent of the lithic assemblage. Quartz is locally available and occurs as glacially deposited riverine
cobbles and in veins of bedrock outcrops. Argillite, which constituted only a minor portion of the Area 1
lithic assemblage at 5 percent, is regionally available from the Boston Basin. The Small Stemmed lithic
tradition in southern New England targeted quartz, and to a lesser extent argillite, for manufacturing
chipped stone tools in southern New England. Small Stemmed and Squibnocket Stemmed projectile
points from the Area 1 Site were all manufactured of quartz consistent with the pattern of observed raw
material preference for the Late Archaic Small Stemmed Tradition.
Archaeological data recovery of the Area 1 Site was designed to examine patterns of lithic material
preference and use. Examination of stone tools and chipping debris from the site would assist in a
determination if a distinct sequence of manufacturing steps in the biface reduction process was practiced
at the site. The stone tools, characteristics of the debitage assemblage (e.g. a preponderance of small- and
medium-sized flakes over larger flakes and very little blocky shatter), and an absence of Boston Basin
volcanic cores and fragments, suggested that only secondary and tertiary lithic reduction of these
materials occurred at the site. These data imply that volcanic materials were transported to the site from
their source areas as blanks, rough bifaces, or preforms, which were later shaped into formal tools, or
perhaps were gathered as beach or glacial cobbles. The presence of numerous, large quartz flakes, an
abundance of shatter, the recovery of spent quartz cores, as well as, small- to medium-sized quartz flakes
on the contrary is indicative of an entirely different pattern by which quartz was utilized ranging from
initial selection of raw material to final stage bifacial tool finishing.
Continued archaeological study of the Area 1 Site was expected to answer whether the complete sequence
of quartz tool manufacture was unique to the Late or Transitional Archaic occupants of the site and/or
whether volcanic materials were being used by earlier or later occupants and how these materials were
being brought to the site, used, and subsequently discarded. Such information might provide clues as to
the complexity of the lithic technologies and how they might relate to the socioeconomic organizations of
those who used them. An examination of the recovered debitage assemblage along with geochemical and
petrological analysis was expected to provide insights into preferences of raw material selection (i.e.
locally available quartz versus regionally available volcanics). These data might also provide information
on communication and transportation networks via waterways and overland routes and territoriality,
particularly during the Late and Transitional Archaic periods.
Specific research questions proposed for the archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site associated
with Research Topic 5 included:
18
PAL Report No. 488
Research Design
•
•
•
•
What lithic materials are associated with the various archaeological components to the site?
What does the Area 1 Site lithic assemblage suggest about site occupation and use?
What types of lithic materials and how are they distributed about the site?
What does this reveal about pre-contact Native American economic systems in the upper North
River drainage?
PAL Report No. 488 19
CHAPTER THREE
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Environmental features were important variables influencing pre-contact Native American and postcontact period settlement, subsistence strategies, and resources exploitation. Natural features and
resources such as bedrock geology, soil drainage, vegetation, and location relative to major drainage
systems and coastal bodies all affected past settlement location, type, and density, as well as the
frequency of resettlement within any given area. Specific environments contained sets of exploitable
natural resources, while the cultural and technological subsystems determined which of those resources
peoples could or would exploit. Knowledge of environmental data contributes to a clearer understanding
of what natural resources were available to human groups and what Hanover’s environment was like in
the past.
The Hanover Marketplace project area is located in Plymouth County near the headwaters of the Iron
Mine Brook approximately one mile west of the confluence of Third Herring Brook and the North River
and one mile north of the confluence of Iron
Mine Brook and the Indian Head River.
Southeastern Massachusetts interior river
valleys and wetland systems supported a rich,
varied, and reliable riverine, wetland, and
woodland floral and faunal resource base that
was periodically exploited and targeted by the
region’s indigenous peoples and by later
European settlers.
Current Environmental Setting
The Hanover Marketplace is situated within
eastern Hanover in northern Plymouth County,
Massachusetts. This part of Plymouth County
and southeastern Massachusetts is situated
within
the
larger
Seaboard Lowland
physiographic province of southern New
England (Figure 3-1). The 15.4-acre Hanover
Marketplace project area contains extremely
diverse terrain that includes wetlands associated
with Iron Mine Brook in its central portion, a
wooded knoll in the south-central area, two
smaller knolls to the north, undulating wooded
terrain to the northwest, and a graded lot in the
project area’s northeastern corner.
The Area 1 Site is located in the southern limits
of the Hanover Marketplace project area just
west of Columbia Road (see Figure 1-2). The
site occupies the southwest side of a broad,
20 PAL Report No. 488
Figure 3-1. Location of the Hanover Marketplace
within the Seaboard Lowland physiographic
province of southern New England (source:
Fenneman 1938).
Physical Environment
wooded knoll that rises roughly 60 to 90 feet (ft) above sea level. The knoll severely slopes downward
toward Iron Mine Brook to the west. Columbia Road forms the current eastern limits of the knoll. The
Area 2 Site was located within the northwestern portion of Hanover Marketplace project area. The Area 2
Site occupied a wooded “T-shaped” knoll north of Iron Mine Brook. This knoll is bordered by moderate
slopes on the north and east and steep slopes to south and west. Area 2 Site elevations ranged from 80 to
100 ft above sea level.
Bedrock Geology
Knowledge of the underlying bedrock and regional stone outcrops is important in evaluating pre- or postcontact Native American population movements and/or evaluating the extent of previously existing trade
and exchange networks at Native American archaeological sites manifest by the physical remains of stone
tools and their waste products, since stone and boulder outcrops, as well as cobbles in the glacial drift,
were periodically exploited for use in stone tool manufacture.
Hanover is located within the northeastern limits of the Narragansett Basin, a broad depression that
extends southerly along the coast of Rhode Island to Newport Bay. The Narragansett Basin is composed
of glacially deposited sediments overlying a primarily a granitic rock base. Bedrock underlying the area is
characterized by a narrow band of upper to middle Pennsylvanian age sandstone, greywacke, shale, and
conglomerate known as the Rhode Island Formation (Zen et al. 1983). Proterozoic Z Age Dedham granite
and granite, gneiss, and schist are situated immediately north and south of central Hanover. Dedham
Granite is described as a grayish pink to greenish gray equigranular to slightly porphyritic granite (Zen et
al. 1983).
Lithic materials preferred by the southeastern Massachusetts Indian peoples for use in the manufacture of
chipped-stone tools included quartz, quartzites, fine-grained volcanic rhyolites or felsites, and
argillaceous mudstones and slates. Felsites/rhyolites were acquired either regionally from one or more of
the well-known lithic source outcrops located in the Blue Hills area (Mattapan Square, Sally Rock Felsite,
Wampatuck Hill, Clarendon Hill), the Hale Reservation in the Town of Westwood, or from Hingham in
the Boston Basin, from the Wamsutta source area of Attleboro, or from the Lynn-Mattapan volcanic suite
of the North Shore (Marblehead) area of Massachusetts. Various lithic material types, which either
occurred in geologic outcrops or were present in cobble form in the glacial drift, were also available from
streambeds, from the nearby coastal margins, or perhaps were easily acquired by travel to one or more of
these known source areas.
Soils
Glacial advance during the last glacial episode flowed generally southward in three lobes: the South
Channel Lobe to the east, the Cape Cod Bay Lobe in the middle, and the Buzzards Bay Lobe to the west
(Figure 3-2). The ice front had major standstills, as evidenced by the two end moraines that occur in
southeastern Massachusetts; one formed Nantucket Island and Martha’s Vineyard and the other the
Woods Hole area of Cape Cod. Several recessional moraines are present with the Buzzards Bay and
Sandwich examples, the one through which the transmission line traverses being the most visible. The
slow advance and rapid retreat of glacial ice depressed and shaped the land, scoured its surface, and
deposited debris. Flowing meltwaters and stagnant or buried blocks of ice created a variety of landforms
seen in Plymouth County today such as kames, eskers, terraces, and outwash plains interspersed by low
hills, knolls, and kettle holes. The erosional forces of wind and water continued to transform the southern
New England surface as the glaciers slowly melted.
The United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS)
Soil Conservation Service identifies soils at the Area 1 and Area 2 sites in Hanover as Hinckley gravelly
PAL Report No. 488 21
Chapter Three
loamy sands. These soils are excessively
drained and occur primarily on terrace
escarpments, eskers, and some kames
(USDA 1969). Slope and droughtiness
severely limit the use of this soil for crops
or pasture and for most non-farm
purposes. The most practical use for this
soil is woodland (USDA 1969).
Drainage Patterns
The Town of Hanover lies within the
North River drainage of northeastern
Plymouth County. The North River and its
tributary streams flow in a general
northeasterly direction and empty into
Massachusetts Bay at the ScituateMarshfield boundary. This drainage is the
major river system of northeastern
Plymouth County and includes parts of
Scituate, Marshfield, Norwell, Pembroke,
Duxbury, Rockland, Halifax, Hanson, and
Hanover. Local drainage is afforded by
Iron Mine Brook and its associated
wetlands. Iron Mine Brook is located
roughly 120 m west of the Area 1 Site. Figure 3-2. Late Pleistocene glacial advance in
From here, the brook flows generally southeastern Massachusetts.
southward to empty into the Indian Head River at Curtis Crossing. The Indian Head River then flows
eastward where it is joined by the Herring River just under a mile and a half southeast of the Hanover
Marketplace. The confluence of these rivers comprises a vast freshwater wetland. The combined river
system then turns north and meets the Third Herring Brook at the Hanover/Norwell town line to become
the North River. The North River then meanders its way north and east for roughly five and a half miles
to Massachusetts Bay at the Scituate and Marshfield town boundary. The combined river network forms
an extremely productive riverine/lacustrine/wetland resource area.
Postglacial Vegetative Sequence for Eastern Massachusetts
Palynological studies from eastern (Newby and Webb 1994; Newby et al. 1986; Newby et al. 2000; Kelso
et al. 2000; Sneddon 1987) and central (Newby 2000, Sneddon and Kaplan 1987) Massachusetts have
been used to reconstruct Holocene period vegetation and forest type succession through time. Sediment
cores from the Makepeace Cedar Swamp in northeastern Carver, Plymouth County (Newby et al. 2000)
and Black Pond in (Sneddon 1987) suggest a vegetative sequence that conforms to broad patterns of
forest type succession known from southern New England.
Following the retreat of the glaciers between roughly 14,000 and 13,600 B.P., southern New England
supported an open treeless, low brush and herb vegetation assemblage similar to that of the modern tundra
(Gaudreau and Webb 1985; Suter 1985). Core A from Makepeace Swamp indicates the presence of wet,
open water conditions in the area circa (ca.) 13,750 years ago (Newby et al. 2000:363). Spruce pollen,
with lesser amounts of pine, birch, and sedge, supports the general sequencing of known plant succession
where a low brush gave way to a spruce dominated woodland. Pollen from Black Pond yielded similar
22
PAL Report No. 488
Physical Environment
results with an open spruce woodland with pine (jack or red), fir, larch, and green alder in the area around
12,000 to 11,000 years ago (Sneddon 1987).
A change in climate between 11,000 and 10,000 years ago resulted in the decrease of the spruce, fir,
larch, and alder boreal forest and an increase in birch with birch pollen reaching its maximum around
10,500 B.P. at Black Pond. Between roughly 9,800 and 8,200 years ago, the spruce woodland was had
been replaced by a forest dominated by pine (Newby et al. 1986; Newby et al. 2000). A radiocarbon age
of 8930 ± 90 B.P. from Houghton’s Pond core HP-2 clearly demonstrates when this pine-birch-oak forest
was extant in eastern Massachusetts (Newby et al. 1986). This mixed coniferous/deciduous vegetation
was part of a large-scale shift to a closed forest environment across the southern New England region.
The Makepeace pollen cores suggest a period of dry climatic conditions (ca. 9700 years B.P.) during the
transition from spruce to pine dominant woodland (Newby et al. 2000). This event has also been similarly
observed from Northborough and Marlborough (Newby 2000) and from the Pequot Cedar Swamp in
Ledyard, Connecticut (McWeeney 1999).
After approximately 8,350 years ago from Makepeace Cedar Swamp and approximately 8,200 years ago
from Houghton’s Pond, oak replaces pine as the dominant pollen reflecting an increase in its frequency in
the regional forests (Newby et al. 1986; Newby et al. 2000). At this time, oak pollen increased by 57
percent in a sediment core from Houghton’s Pond. Following 8,000 years ago, oak persisted and remains
to this day as the largest constituents of southern New England’s hardwood forests, although beech may
have been a substantial component, as well, between 8,000 and 4,800 years ago in southeastern
Massachusetts (Gaudreau and Webb 1985; Newby et al. 1987).
By about 5,000 years ago, hickory occurs as an element of the regional deciduous forest, which also
included lesser amounts of pine, birch, maple, elm and ash. Palynological research in Plymouth County,
Massachusetts suggest that drier climatic conditions ca. 5,300 to 3,000 years ago may have stressed the
hemlock trees in regional forests, making them more vulnerable to insects and/or disease (Bhiry and
Filion 1996; Newby 2000; Newby et al. 2000; Yu et al. 1997). The hemlock decrease continued until ca.
3,000 B.P., but was gradual and likely was not noticeable to people who occupied the landscape.
Forest vegetation across the southeastern New England region between approximately 4,500 and 3,000
years ago was marked by maximum species diversity. Oak was the dominant species in addition to
hickory, beech, yellow birch, elm, maple, sycamore and pine. Similar pollens of the same age and type
were also recovered from the Salem Neck Sewage Plant from Salem (Kelso et al. 2000). A broad trend
toward cooler climatic conditions is reflected in the palynological record between 3,500 and 2,000 years
ago by an increase in the frequency of spruce pollen and slight decrease in the relative frequency of oak
pollen. The Makepeace Cedar Swamp and the Houghton’s Pond cores demonstrate a period of more moist
climatic conditions and rising water levels after 3,000 years ago (Newby et al. 1986; Newby et al. 2000).
Hickory and chestnut became more common as components of the forest vegetation in southern New
England. The prevalent southeastern Massachusetts forest by ca. 1000 years ago included an oak-chestnut
type with secondary hickory, hemlock, beech, birch, pine, and maple (Newby et al. 1986).
Vegetation Types
The Area 1 and 2 sites within the Hanover Marketplace project area were populated by a second-growth
mixed deciduous-coniferous forest. The predominant tree species is white pine with fewer oaks, birches,
and red maples. Understory growth is limited to patches of greenbriar. The wetlands surrounding Iron
Mine Brook contain mostly red maple with marsh grasses and ferns.
The transition of Black Pond from an open pond with rooted aquatic flora to a closing bog mat supporting
white cedars occurred gradually, beginning with the establishment of an ericaceous (heath genus) flora by
PAL Report No. 488 23
Chapter Three
3300 B.P. The white cedar-dominated swamp began to develop with the arrival of this species at about
2500 B.P. The encroachment of the bog mat over the deeper portion of the pond prevented the growth of
rooted aquatics in recent centuries. At the regional scale, evidence of eutrophication (algae bloom) in
ponds and changes in wetland structure (bog formation) and vegetation have been noted in several pollen
cores taken from different locations in southeastern New England (Nelson 1984). The Cedar Swamp core
in the upper Sudbury River drainage, for example, contained evidence of eutrophication that has been
attributed to the decline in hemlock and an increase in nutrient rich run-off from the deciduous forest. The
occupation of upland areas adjacent to wetlands and ponds by prehistoric hunter/gatherer groups has also
been suggested as a possible source of nutrients responsible for eutrophication (Sneddon and Kaplan
1987). Spruce increased in frequency and moved further south at higher altitudes in both the northern and
southern New England forests as a result of a shift to cooler, moist climatic conditions across the entire
Northeast after about 4000 B.P.
Syntheses of palynological and archaeological data from southeastern Massachusetts and Rhode Island
have suggested that changes in wetlands (size, structure, vegetation types) due to eutrophication and the
climatic cooling trend were factors influencing prehistoric settlement and resource use (Bradshaw et al.
1982; Thorbahn 1982; Cox et al. 1983; Simon 1991; Nicholas 1991). Another factor possibly affecting
the size of ponds and wetlands and the vegetation communities associated with them was evidence of a
local dry phase observed in pollen cores taken from Titicut Swamp in the Taunton Basin of southeastern
Massachusetts. The overly dry climatic conditions took place between 4200 and 3150 B.P., and may have
affected prehistoric settlement and resource (Bradshaw et al. 1982; Nelson 1984). Pollen cores taken from
the greater eastern Massachusetts region, including Cape Cod, did not show evidence of a "drought"
during this period (Winkler 1985; Newby et al. 1987; Sneddon and Kaplan 1987; Sneddon 1987). The
cause, therefore, for the very localized dry conditions observed in southeast Massachusetts appears to be
more likely related to geomorphological rather than climatic changes (Kelso, personal communication in
Simon 1991). There is no evidence to date of a similar dry period elsewhere in eastern Massachusetts, and
in particular in the upper North River drainage.
Some indications of forest clearance or alteration around 1000 B.P. have been observed in pollen
diagrams from wetlands in southern Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. A significant increase
in herbaceous plant pollen (Ambrosia, Tubuliflorae, etc.) at that time suggests that there were openings in
the forest vegetation cover which provided suitable habitat for these weedy plants (Bernabo 1977).
During the late prehistoric period, forests in eastern and southeastern Massachusetts consisted of an oakchestnut type with hemlock, hickory, beech, birch, pine, and maple.
Pollen cores taken from wetlands and ponds in southeastern New England clearly show the effects of
early historic period forest clearance within the last 300 years. Decreases in tree pollen are matched by
strong increases in pollen from weedy plants such as sheep sollel (Rumex), plantain (Plantago), ragweed
(Ambrosia), and grass (Graminae). Some trees common as early successional stage types in second
growth forests such as red cedar, birch, and white pine became dominant in abandoned farmland (Newby
et al. 1987; Nelson 1984) or "old field" situations (Braun 1950).
24
PAL Report No. 488
CHAPTER FOUR
NATIVE AMERICAN LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT
Professional and avocational archaeological surveys have documented nearly an 11,000-year-long
sequence of human occupation in southeastern Massachusetts. The following chapter summarizes the
current body of Native American settlement data in the Nemasket area from the earliest period for which
archaeological remains have been documented in the area to approximately King Philip’s War (1675–
1676). The pre-contact Native American history of Massachusetts is divided into three major periods: the
PaleoIndian, Archaic, and Woodland (Table 4-1). The patterns associated with cultural and temporal
periods for southern New England are presented sequentially. Each of these periods is distinguishable on
the basis of material culture, specific patterns of land use, and occasionally by other indicators such as
mortuary practices or traditions. The cultural and temporal groupings listed below are intended to serve as
a generalized organizational framework only.
PaleoIndian Period (13,000–10,000 B.P.1)
Southern New England was populated by bands of mobile hunters and foragers collectively referred to as
PaleoIndians following the retreat of glacial ice between 21,000 and 16,000 years ago. The earliest
unequivocal evidence for human occupation in New England is associated with the Clovis Culture, which
dates to as early as 11,120 ± 180 radiocarbon years B.P. at the Vail Site in Maine (Gramly 1982). The
timing of the initial population of the Eastern Seaboard is presently debated by archaeologists in light of
the discovery of cultural strata and artifacts in South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania,
which apparently predate the PaleoIndian “Clovis Culture” or fluted point tradition. The advance and
subsequent retreat of thick glacial ice across southern New England ca. 15,000 to 16,000 years ago is
often assumed to have erased any evidence for “pre-Clovis” occupation of the region, and no such “PreClovis” finds are known from New England.
Traditional interpretations of PaleoIndian settlement and subsistence systems are that mobile hunters
exploited large migratory game such as mastodon, caribou, bison, or elk (Dragoo 1976; Kelly and Todd
1988; Snow 1980; Waguespack and Surovell 2003). PaleoIndian subsistence data from the New EnglandMaritimes (Meltzer and Smith 1986; Spiess et al. 1998) and the Great Lakes (Stothers 1996) regions
indicate PaleoIndians exploited large migratory game, namely caribou. Nevertheless, the relative absence
of migratory or megafaunal (i.e., mammoth and mastadon) animal remains from PaleoIndian
archaeological contexts in southern New England has caused some to question the “specialized
subsistence model” in the region (Dincauze 1993; Ogden 1977). Dincauze (1990) argues that southern
New England PaleoIndians were more generalized in their subsistence regimes, hunting and gathering
opportunistically available animal and plant species. Jones and Forrest (2003) concur arguing that the
higher abundance of small PaleoIndian encampments relative to larger base camps in the region may be
characteristic of the PaleoIndian settlement system whereby mobile foragers adjusted to resource
unpredictability. Resource-rich freshwater glacial ponds and wetlands were widely distributed across the
recently deglaciated New England landscape and likely supported a diversity of plant and animal species
1 Dates presented in this chapter refer to radiocarbon years before present unless otherwise stated. “Present” is
defined as 1950 A.D.
PAL Report No. 488 25
Chapter Four
26
PAL Report No. 488
Native American Land Use and Settlement
available for human consumption. Following the thinking of Jones and Forrest, smaller groups would
have been better equipped to exploit available resources in southern New England than larger groups.
Cultural materials diagnostic of PaleoIndian occupation include fluted Clovis-like (Bull Brook, Neponset,
or Nicholas type) and Eden-like projectile points. Other stone tools associated with this period include
scraping tools, gravers, and drills and channel flutes. PaleoIndian tools recovered from southern New
England typically include non-local (chert and jasper) lithic materials and extra-regionally available
rhyolites.
Documented PaleoIndian materials are quite rare and suggest that PaleoIndian settlement and/or
exploitation was focused along interior postglacial wetlands, glacial lakes, and riverine settings. The Bull
Brook Site in Ipswich covered several acres and yielded thousands of artifacts that included diagnostic
fluted points, scrapers, and assorted stone tools (Byers 1954; Grimes 1980; Grimes et al. 1984). Locus 8
of the Wapanucket Site (19-PL-203) in Middleborough produced one of the most significant PaleoIndian
Period deposits known from southeastern Massachusetts. Located on the north side of Assawompset
Pond, Locus 8 of the Wapanucket Site yielded an assemblage of PaleoIndian fluted projectile points,
gravers, scrapers, and channel flakes, as well as debitage of chert and rhyolite from a highly localized area
(Bradley and Boudreau 2006). The site is interpreted as a temporary campsite situated atop the crest of a
sand dune located 8.5 m or 28 ft above the current lake level (Robbins 1980:305–306; Robbins and
Agogino 1964). Site 19-PL-348, located on a bluff overlooking the North River and its wetlands in
Marshfield, also yielded a suspected late PaleoIndian Plano assemblage (MHC site files).
The Archaic Period (10,000–3000 B.P.)
The Archaic Period represented a time of increased familiarization and settlement within the southern
New England woodlands. The Archaic has been subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late periods.
Paleoenvironmental and archaeological evidence argues in favor of increased diversification of food
resources, the generalized exploitation of faunal and floral species, and the establishment of tribal
territories throughout the Archaic Period. In general, Archaic Period peoples are conceptualized as having
a primarily hunting and gathering subsistence economy with a settlement pattern characterized by
wandering or seasonal relocations within circumscribed territories (Dincauze 1975).
Early Archaic Period (10,000–7500 B.P.)
The Early Archaic Period coincided with the commencement of the Holocene epoch, ca. 10,000 years
ago. The early Holocene was marked by warmer and drier conditions than the preceding Pleistocene
epoch. Early Archaic peoples continued to generalize in their subsistence base, hunting available game
and harvesting woodland and wetland vegetation and nuts (Dumont 1981; Meltzer and Smith 1986;
Nicholas 1987). Identifying Early Archaic archaeological deposits in southern New England and
Massachusetts has typically relied on the recovery of bifurcate-based lithic projectile points.
Concentrations of Early Archaic bifurcate-based projectiles have been identified around the perimeters of
ponds, marshes, and wooded wetlands and at the headwaters of major rivers in southeastern
Massachusetts (Taylor 1976). Bifurcate-based projectile points from the Taunton River drainage indicates
Boston basin lithic materials (e.g. Blue Hills rhyolite, Sally Rock felsite, Mattapan felsites, etc.) were
commonly used in their manufacture. The proximity of Early Archaic sites to wetland locations implies
that wetland resources became increasingly important during the Early Archaic Period (Nicholas 1987).
A virtually exclusive reliance on regionally and extra-regionally available lithic materials such as various
rhyolites for the production of Early Archaic bifurcate-based projectiles suggests a mobile subsistence
strategy for the Early Archaic bifurcate-based producers focused on the acquisition of game within the
regions interior wetlands. The identification of a semi-subterranean pit house associated with a LeCroy
PAL Report No. 488 27
Chapter Four
Bifurcate complex at the Weilnau Site in Ohio (Stothers 1996) and more recently the identification of two
pit houses dated to 7830 ± 130 and 8110 ± 90 at the Whortleberry Site in Dracut, Massachusetts (Dudek
2005) may imply a previously unknown degree of sedentism for the Early Archaic bifurcate producers in
portions of the Northeast and Great Lakes.
Early Archaic sites and materials have been recovered from around the perimeters of ponds, marshes, and
wooded wetlands at the headwaters of major rivers. Few Early Archaic archaeological sites and materials
are known from the North River Drainage, though many more are known from the Taunton River
Drainage of Plymouth County. Diagnostic bifurcate-based projectile points have been recovered from a
significant number of large multicomponent archaeological sites along a 24-km (15-mile) stretch of the
Taunton River in Middleborough and Bridgewater leading some to speculate a territorial core focused in
this area during the Early to Middle Archaic Period (Dincauze and Mulholland 1977). Numerous
bifurcate-based projectile points have been recovered from the Titicut (19-PL-161) and Seaver Farm (19PL-162) sites located in close proximity to one another on either side of the banks of the Taunton River in
Bridgewater (Taylor 1970, 1976), the Double P Site (19-PL-343) also in Bridgewater (MHC 1982), the
Riverside 3 and Bridge Street II sites within the Riverside Park Archaeological District in Lakeville
(Begley and Davin 1996; Raber et al. 1991), the Fort Hill Site in North Middleboro (Taylor 1976), as well
as, at the Wapanucket (Robbins 1980). The Nessralla’s Nursery Site (19-PL-372), located on a terrace at
the southern end of Monponsett Pond in Halifax, was identified from Bifurcate-based projectile points
from the Nessrall’s Nursery Site (19-PL-372) in Halifax represents the earliest evidence of Native
American activity at Monponsett Pond (MHC site files; Mahlstedt 1985).
Middle Archaic Period (7500–5000 B.P.)
An increased visibility of Middle Archaic sites in southern New England suggests that colonizing peoples
were firmly established in the region by 7500 B.P. with resident populations continuing to generalize in
their subsistence regimes. Middle Archaic sites are common around waterfalls, river rapids, major river
drainages, wetlands, and coastal settings (Bunker 1992; Dincauze 1976; Doucette and Cross 1997;
Maymon and Bolian 1992) with large base camps established along extensive wetland systems (Doucette
and Cross 1997). Smaller logistical camps and exploitation sites supplemented the base camps.
Subsistence activities reflected at these sites included the harvesting of anadromous fish, hunting and
foraging, and fishing and shellfish collection. An increase in the complexity of seasonal rounds is
conjectured based on the broad range of resources available throughout the period (McBride 1984).
Southern New England Middle Archaic occupations are typically identifiable by the presence of Neville,
Neville-variant, Stark, and Merrimack style projectile points (Dincauze 1976; Dincauze and Mulholland
1977). Adzes, gouges, and axes suggest heavy woodworking and possibly the appearance of dugout
canoes. A preference for regionally available lithic raw materials (quartzite and rhyolite) with lesser
amounts of locally available materials is reflected in the site database. The correlation between regional
lithic material types and Middle Archaic materials has led Dincauze (1976) to theorize that Native
American band or tribal territories were established within major river drainages, and that the scheduling
of subsistence activities such as the seasonal pursuit of anadromous fish species may have developed in
response to territoriality (Dincauze and Mulholland 1977). The location of many of southeastern
Massachusetts’ documented Middle Archaic sites demonstrates a strong focus on the region’s interior
wetland environs.
Middle Archaic Neville, Neville-variant, and Stark projectile points are present in artifact collections
from the Pembroke Ponds complex (Mahlstedt 1985). Documented sites and collections include sites 19PL-375 and 19-PL-475 located near the extensive wetlands of the Great Cedar Swamp and sites 19-PL141, 19-PL-400, 19-PL-415, and 19-PL-452 located around Monponsett Pond. Stark-like projectile points
have been recovered from 19-PL-371 situated at the confluence of the Winnetuxet and Taunton Rivers in
28
PAL Report No. 488
Native American Land Use and Settlement
South Halifax, and the Bartlett Brook Site (19-PL-413) located along a small tributary of the Winnetuxet
River. The recovery of Middle Archaic tools throughout the region is consistent with small occupations of
limited focus representative of short-duration task-oriented locations associated with the acquisition and
limited processing of game resources supported by the larger base-camps that were settled for longer
periods of time.
Late Archaic Period (5000–3000 B.P.)
Late Archaic Period archaeological sites are well represented in southeastern Massachusetts. The density
of Late Archaic deposits and an associated reliance on locally available lithic materials (quartz, quartzite,
and argillite) is suggestive of increased Native American residency for the period (Dincauze 1975).
Seasonal and multioccupation Late Archaic campsites were associated with procurement of various
resources. Shellfish exploitation, first observed during the Middle Archaic, intensified as the rate of
coastal inundation decreased and estuaries, salt marshes, and tidal mud flats were established (Braun
1974; Lavin 1988). The overlapping mosaic of archaeological sites created during generations of land use
attest to intensive utilization of the Northeast’s swamps and wetlands and occupation along regional
waterways beginning approximately 4,200 years ago. The high density of Late Archaic sites in a wide
range of habitats that includes edges of streams, bogs, and kettle hole swamps, coupled with the large
number of artifacts attributed to the period, is suggestive of a large population exploiting an extremely
broad spectrum of resources (Dincauze 1975; McBride 1984; Ritchie 1983).
The Late Archaic Period is defined by three cultural traditions: the Laurentian, Small Stemmed, and
Susquehanna. Each tradition is associated with specific periods of time, distinct lithic technologies, and/or
ceremonial or cultural practices that can be discriminated archaeologically. The Laurentian tradition is the
earliest expression of the Late Archaic in the Northeast. Materials associated with Laurentian occupations
include woodworking tools (hones and adzes), ground slate points and knives, ulus, simple bannerstones,
and broad-bladed and side-notched Vosburg, Otter Creek, and Brewerton type projectile points (Ritchie
1980:79). Lithic materials used in Laurentian tradition tool manufacture include quartzites, volcanics, and
some argillites. Laurentian tradition site distributions imply an interior settlement focus associated with a
hunter-gatherer subsistence economy. A focus on the uplands led Ritchie (1980) to suggest an essentially
interior riverine adaptation for Laurentian groups.
The Small Stemmed tradition continues as an accepted Late Archaic cultural manifestation, although the
duration of the tradition appears to extend into the Woodland Period (Mahlstedt 1985). The Small
Stemmed lithic tradition may be a regional development out of the Middle Archaic
Neville/Stark/Merrimack sequence (Dincauze 1976; McBride 1984). Diagnostic elements associated with
the tradition include Squibnocket Stemmed, Wading River, and a host of small or narrow stemmed
projectile points (Dincauze 1975). Small, basally ground Squibnocket triangles appear to be
contemporaneous with Small Stemmed occupations for southern New England (Ritchie 1969). Regional
archaeological data indicates Small Stemmed producers relied on a quartz tool technology (McBride
1984). Quartz cobbles from glacial outwash, riverbeds, or coastal contexts were the most common
sources of raw material for Small Stemmed chipped-stone tools.
Many sites along the North River (e.g. 19-PL-49, 19-PL-50, 19-PL-24, 19-PL-348) have produced Late
Archaic cultural materials. Site 19-PL-511, located along the Indian Head River roughly one mile south
of the Area 1 and Area 2 Sites is interpreted as a major quartz reduction station that yielded numerous
quartz artifacts and lithic debitage. Site 19-PL-549, located on the south shore of the river produced one
Squibnocket and two Small Stemmed projectile points. A Brewerton projectile point, six bifaces, a rocklined pit feature, and argillite and quartz debitage were excavated from Late Archaic campsite 19-PL-507
located roughly one mile north of the Hanover Marketplace. 19-PL-512 in Norwell produced a
Brewerton, 16 Small Stemmed, and 12 Squibnocket projectile points. Multicomponent site 19-PL-583
PAL Report No. 488 29
Chapter Four
also in Norwell yielded four Squibnocket Triangles in associated with a quartz and argillite debitage
assemblage. Late Archaic components are also present in the Pembroke Ponds complex from site such as
19-PL-446, 19-PL-457, and 19-PL-449.
Transitional/Terminal Archaic Period (3600–2500 B.P.)
The Transitional Archaic Period bridges the Archaic and Woodland periods and is recognized in southern
New England by Susquehanna tradition cultural materials and sites. An extensive trade network,
increased burial ceremonialism, and technologies markedly different from the antecedent Late Archaic
traditions characterized the Transitional Archaic. Radiometric and stratigraphic information from some
southern New England archaeological sites indicate the Susquehanna tradition was temporally
contemporaneous with the Late Archaic Small Stemmed tradition sites (Filios 1989). The Susquehanna
tradition in southern New England commenced with the Atlantic Phase (ca. 3600 B.P.) and terminated
with the Orient Phase (ca. 2600 B.P.) coincident with the beginning of the Early Woodland Period
(Dincauze 1972; Ritchie 1980). The peoples associated with these phases, although differing in some
ways from one another, shared similar cultural commonalities (lithic technologies, cultural materials,
and/or settlement and subsistence data) to place them within the collective Susquehanna archaeological
tradition.
New technological developments associated with the Susquehanna tradition included the manufacture of
steatite vessels and broad-bladed tool forms (Atlantic, Susquehanna Broad, Coburn, and Orient Fishtail
projectile points or knives) that either developed out of the local populations or were introduced to the
region by peoples migrating to New England. Steatite bowl use, technology, and trade had its beginnings
approximately 3,600 years ago following the Atlantic Phase, peaked between 3400 and 2900 B.P., and
fell into disuse by the end of the Orient Phase. Regionally available steatite outcrops are known from the
Worcester area, middle Connecticut River valley, and northern Rhode Island. Broad and thin
Susquehanna tradition bifaces were ideally suited for knives and possibly woodworking implements and
are in marked contrast to the more linear, elongated, narrow, and thicker piercing Small Stemmed
projectiles. Susquehanna tradition chipped-stone tools were commonly manufactured from a variety of
lithic materials that included regionally available rhyolites, quartzite, and non-local cherts. A reliance on
readily available lithic materials such as quartz, argillite, and some rhyolites is apparent by the final
Orient Phase of the Susquehanna tradition. The manufacture and use of heavy steatite vessels by
Susquehanna tradition peoples may imply a trend toward increased sedentism by resident populations.
However, the predominance of non-local lithic materials in Susquehanna tradition cultural assemblages
implies a relatively mobile settlement strategy.
The Transitional Archaic settlement pattern was essentially oriented toward coastal or riverine settings
with a subsistence base focused on the acquisition of riverine or estuarine flora and fauna that included
fish, nuts, and small- to medium-sized mammals (Pagoulatos 1988). Susquehanna tradition sites are
markers of the Transitional Archaic Period and are best known from regional cremation cemetery
complexes such as the Vincent, Watertown Arsenal, and Millbury III sites in Massachusetts (Dincauze
1968; Leveillee 1995) and the Bliss and Griffin sites in Connecticut (Pfeiffer 1980). In addition to
mortuary sites, documented Susquehanna tradition occupation sites include moderate-sized residential
camps, shorter duration and smaller field camps, and logistical location special purpose sites (Pagoulatos
1988).
A Transitional Archaic Atlantic projectile point of chert, quartz cores and bifaces, and quartz, quartzite,
and argillite debitage were excavated from site 19-PL-510 located one mile south of the Hanover
Marketplace. Susquehanna Broad and Atlantic-like projectile points wre also recovered from site 19-PL141 within the Pembroke Ponds complex.
30
PAL Report No. 488
Native American Land Use and Settlement
The Woodland Period (3000–450 B.P.)
The Woodland Period was a time of dynamic development for southern New England’s indigenous
peoples and generally involved a transition from a foraging way of life toward a more sedentary
existence. The Woodland Period has traditionally been interpreted as reflecting an abandonment of the
Archaic subsistence pattern of hunting/gathering/fishing, replacing, or supplementing it with the adoption
of horticulture and ceramic technology (Snow 1980). However, the transition from the Archaic Period
into the Woodland Period does not reflect a strictly linear evolution from one stage to the next. The
archaeological record supports a continued diversification of food resources, an increased reliance on
shellfish and maritime resources, refinement in pottery manufacturing, the maintenance of long-distance
trade and exchange networks, and eventually year-round coastal or riverine settlement with evidence for
horticulture. Like the Archaic Period, the Woodland Period can be subdivided into Early, Middle, and
Late periods.
Early Woodland Period (3000–1600 B.P.)
Early Woodland settlement patterns were characterized by limited use of upland areas and more intensive
use of coastal and estuarine resources and locales. Nevertheless, bends and confluences of major rivers
continued to support Early Woodland settlement. Coastal habitation sites and shell midden deposits from
along the saltwater and estuarine margins of Maine to New York reflect the increasing dependence on
shellfish and other marine resources during the Early Woodland Period. Interior site locations that contain
artifacts diagnostic of the Early Woodland Period are not as numerous as the preceding periods. This may
be related to the problem of determining what constitutes diagnostic artifact assemblages for the period.
Early Woodland archaeological deposits have traditionally been diagnosed through the presence of
Meadowood, Lagoon, and Rossville type projectile points, as well as grit-tempered, cord-marked Vinette
I ceramic styles in the absence of radiocarbon assays. Early Woodland Period occupations, however, are
generally underrepresented in the regional archaeological record. This has led to speculation that there
was a population decline for the period (Dincauze 1974; Lavin 1988). Conversely, others argue that the
apparent underrepresentation of Early Woodland sites may stem from the difficulty in determining what
constitutes diagnostic artifact assemblages for the period (Juli and McBride 1984). The positive
association of some Small Stemmed projectile points with Early Woodland radiocarbon dates indicates
that some Early Woodland assemblages are being misidentified as older Late Archaic materials.
Patterns of Early Woodland settlement and resource collection in the North River drainage are not well
documented and are poorly understood as most of the sites in the region occur in coastal or estuarine
zones with lesser numbers on major rivers and lakes. Early Woodland Rossville projectile points from site
19-PL-348 were observed in the Seamans artifact collection. Both the Halifax Springs and Plymouth
Street sites within the Pembroke Ponds complex contained Meadowood and Rossville-like projectile
points.
Middle Woodland Period (1600–1000 B.P.)
Middle Woodland site distributions suggest a continued focus on coastal or riverine ecosystems. Interior
Middle Woodland sites particularly targeted major river bends and confluences. Small hunting camps
were contrasted with larger residential habitations, and small “nodal” sites specialized in the circulation of
cultural materials through a formalized trade network may have been part of the regional Middle
Woodland settlement system (Hecker 1995).
Traditionally the introduction, adoption, and subsequent intensification of horticulture for the production
of food in the Northeast has been perceived as substantially altering previously established settlement and
PAL Report No. 488 31
Chapter Four
subsistence patterns of Archaic Period hunters and gatherers (Snow 1980). Consequently, horticulture has
been assumed to have had important impacts on the later Native American subsistence and settlement
base for southern New England, as it was widely believed that it initially supplemented and later
supplanted a pre-existing focus on hunting and gathering subsistence strategies sometime during the
Middle Woodland Period. However, the earliest evidence of domesticated agricultural products in the
region dates to around A.D. 1000, coincident with the end of the period suggesting a “late” reliance on
horticulture (Bendremer and Dewar 1993).
Artifacts diagnostic of the period include Jack’s Reef Pentagonal and Corner-Notched and Fox Creek type
projectile points and rocker and dentate-stamped ceramics. Middle Woodland occupations in southeastern
New England are commonly marked by a high occurrence of non-local chert, jasper, and various amounts
of hornfels from the Blue Hills area south of Boston (Luedtke 1987; Ritchie and Gould 1985). The use of
Boston Basin lithics and exotic cherts and jaspers is in contrast to the almost exclusive use of quartz and
argillite Small Stemmed materials and Terminal Archaic Orient Phase materials dating to the Early
Woodland Period. The relative frequency of “exotic” raw materials from Middle Woodland sites implies
the existence of long-distance exchange networks extending from Labrador to Pennsylvania and beyond
(Dragoo 1976; Fitting 1978; Snow 1980).
A number of possible Middle Woodland Period occupations are suggested by artifacts in the Seamans
Collection. For example, the Winnetuxet/Taunton Site contained three Jack’s Reef Corner-Notched
projectile points (Mahlstedt 1985). Middle Woodland Fox Creek projectile points were also unearthed at
the Oak Island Site (19-PL-50) on the North River.
Late Woodland Period (1000–450 B.P.)
The distribution of Late Woodland Period archaeological deposits appears to be a continuation of the
Middle Woodland pattern with Late Woodland archaeological deposits common within coastal
environments, around interior freshwater ponds and wetlands, and adjacent to large tributary streams and
rivers. Late Woodland settlement types included specialized exploitation sites (shell middens, hunting and
processing camps, lithic workshops, etc.), small domestic sites, and larger hamlets or villages. By the Late
Woodland Period maize horticulture continued to gain in importance. With intensive maize horticulture
came the need, refinement, and advances in storage technology to ensure that ample maize would be
available throughout the winter months and that a sufficient supply of seed crop would be available for
the next season. With an increased reliance on stationary storage facilities, people became tethered to
specific site areas or localized regions, which resulted in decreased mobility, whereby residential mobility
was abandoned in favor of logistical mobility. Logistical mobility involved the mobilization of few
individuals, as opposed to entire family units or perhaps bands, to set out for exploitative purposes.
Coastal sites were contrasted with interior hunting sites where individuals exploited and hunted terrestrial
animal species such as deer and gathered predictable botanical resources such as nuts and berries.
Reduction in communal mobility influenced the development of Late Woodland territories and social
structures. Social complexity, the formation of political alliances, and the establishment of tribal
territories appear to have developed during the period (Mulholland 1988). Many researchers believe
“intensive” maize horticulture must have been inextricably linked with population growth and Native
American sedentary settlement reasoning that only such a productive subsistence economy could reliably
support such large communal populations. McBride and Dewar (1987) have countered arguing that large
settlements could have developed independently of horticulture, especially in ecologically rich settings
such as coastal environments and estuaries, where there is a rich and reliable maritime or estuarine (fish
and shellfish) base.
The Late Woodland Period is associated with an improvement in ceramic technology and production.
32
PAL Report No. 488
Native American Land Use and Settlement
Late Woodland artifacts represented in the regional archaeological record include triangular Madison and
Levanna type projectile points and cord-wrapped, stick-impressed, and incised ceramics. Diagnostic
Levanna projectile points were most often manufactured out of quartz, argillite, as well as rhyolites
derived from the Lynn Volcanic Suite and Blue Hills Area of northeastern Massachusetts and the Boston
Basin, respectively, or coastal cobbles.
Site 19-PL-509, located on a high, flat ridge between Iron Mine Brook and its associated wetlands less
than one mile south of the Area 1 Site produced numerous artifacts including a felsite Levanna projectile
point and aboriginal ceramic sherds.
Contact Period (450 - 300 B.P.)
Native American settlement and subsistence patterns established during the Late Woodland were
disrupted beginning in the early sixteenth century with initial sporadic and later sustained contact with
European immigrants and settlers. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Native American settlements were
focused within traditional coastal tribal territories that developed prior to and during the Late Woodland
Period. Aspects of the Native culture patterns remained unchanged, some intensified, while others were
adapted from European practices as a result of contact. Traditional Native American material assemblages
were supplemented by European items such as copper, brass, and iron pots, metal and knives, bottles,
jugs, cloth, etc. The subsistence economy of the resident Native Americans eventually changed as a result
of the increasing reliance on and partial adaptations to, the European commodity-based economic system
(Turnbaugh 1993a, 1993b). Local Natives began to sell off their land or the rights to the resources
supported by them as they became increasingly reliant upon European items and were involuntarily
coerced into a “life of enforced dependency” (Bourne 1990:135).
When European explorers and settlers first arrived on the shores of southeastern Massachusetts, in the
vicinity of the Hanover Marketplace was the traditional tribal territory of the Massachusett Indian
peoples. The Massachusett occupied the lands around Massachusetts Bay. Their neighbors the Pokanoket
(Wampanoag) occupied the lands extending westward from the eastern shore of Narragansett Bay all
along the coast to include Cape Cod and the Islands. Early European visitors to southeastern
Massachusetts included Bartholomew Gosnold who attempted a settlement at Cuttyhunk in 1602, Martin
Pring who visited Truro in 1603, George Waymouth’s visit to Nantucket in 1605, and Samuel de
Champlain’s (1615) followed by Captain John Smith’s (1614) explorations along the coastline.
Permanent settlement was not established until the Pilgrims settled Plymouth in 1620, however.
Contagious diseases, many of which the resident Algonquian Indians had not had sufficient time to build
up a natural immunity to, followed the recently arrived European immigrants to the Americas. The result
was a series of seventeenth-century epidemics that virtually decimated southern New England’s
indigenous population depopulating large portions of eastern Massachusetts opening the area up for
settlement by Europeans.
Early- to mid-seventeenth century Native American settlement was focused within major river drainages
along important waterways. The MHC (1982:33) has denoted five major Native American core areas of
Contact Period settlement in southeastern Massachusetts. Identified cores included the Plymouth Bay,
North River, Assawopmset, Pembroke Ponds, and Titicut cores (Figure 4-1). The Pembroke Ponds core
was occupied by the Massachusett with a major native settlement at Mattakeeset. The coastal core, which
extended from the North River south to Plymouth Bay, included a major settlement at Patuxet, the central
location of a probable cultural and linguistic sub-group of the Wampanoag (MHC 1982). The Neponset
Core, located to the north and west of Hanover, had settlement focused around large headwater ponds and
smaller ponds in Canton, Sharon, and Walpole.
PAL Report No. 488 33
Chapter Four
Figure 4-1. The Hanover Marketplace in relation to core areas of seventeenth-century Native
American settlement within southeastern Massachusetts (source: MHC 1982).
34
PAL Report No. 488
CHAPTER FIVE
METHODOLOG
The goal of archaeological investigations at the Hanover Marketplace was to evaluate the eligibility of the
Area 1 and Area 2 sites for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and mitigate the effects
construction impacts would have on the Area 1 Site through archaeological data recovery.
Fieldwork Data Collection Techniques
Archaeological Site Examination
Evaluation of National Register significance for the Area 1 and Area 2 sites was aided by determining the
horizontal and vertical boundaries of the archaeological deposits, assessing each of the site’s
archaeological content, and determining their ability to provide new archaeological data capable of adding
to our knowledge of pre-contact Native American land use in southeastern Massachusetts.
Area 1 Site
Intensive archaeological survey of the Area 1 Site by the OPA involved the excavation of 50-x-50 cm test
pits at a 10 m interval along four parallel transects that ran in a northwest/southeast direction (see Figure
1-4). Determination of the spatial limits of Area 1 Site cultural materials at the site examination level was
accomplished by establishing a 5 m coordinate grid of test pits across the entire knoll atop of which the
site was located (see Figure 3-1). OPA Test Pit 7, located at the southeastern end of the knoll roughly 14
m west of Columbia Road, was assigned PAL grid coordinates N0E0. A total of 103, 50-x-50 cm test pits
was excavated during the site examination of the Area 1 Site. Test pits were excavated 75 m north of
N0E0 site datum, 50 m south of the datum, and 35 m west of the datum to the edge of a steep slope and
associated borrow pit. Following test pit excavation, six, 1-x-1 m excavation units (EUs) was excavated in
areas of relatively high artifact densities to collect information on the site’s archaeological content and its
physical integrity. Pre-contact Native American cultural materials and/or cultural materials were
recovered from all six of the excavation units.
Archaeological test units were excavated by shovel and trowel in arbitrary 10 cm levels into sterile
subsoils. Excavated soils were hand-sieved through ¼-inch hardware cloth. Cultural material remaining in
the screen was bagged by unit, level, feature, and/or activity loci and labeled with appropriate
provenience information. Notes were recorded on standardized test pit and excavation unit forms. Soil
samples for flotation were collected from each feature. Black and white photographs and color slides were
taken of the general site areas and of the cultural features.
The excavation of archaeological test pits during the site examination resulted in the recognition of two
spatially discrete loci of pre-contact Native American cultural activity: the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration and the S5W10 Concentration. The Northeast Quadrant Concentration is distributed about
a 650 m2 area at the crest of the knoll that borders Route 53 within the northeastern site area. The
Northeast Quadrant Concentration extends from the N10 grid line northward to the N70 grid line and
from the edge of the road embankment westward to the W10 grid line (see Figure 2-1). This locus of
Native American activity represents an area of domestic space that dated to the Late/Transitional Archaic
PAL Report No. 488 35
Chapter Five
Period. Activities conducted at the Northeast Quadrant Concentration included stone tool manufacture
and subsistence-related activities (resource acquisition and processing).
The S5W10 Concentration was located approximately 20 m southwest of the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration. This locus of Native American activity encompasses an approximate 150 m2 area located
between the N0 and S10 and E0 and W15 grid lines (see Figure 2-1). A steeply gouged borrow area was
located to the immediate southeast of this locus. The S5W10 Concentration appears to represent a shortterm, task-specific activity area where quartz tools were manufactured.
Area 2 Site
Intensive archaeological survey of the Area 2 Site involved the excavation of test pits along three parallel
and one perpendicular testing transects (see Figure 1-5). Close interval “bracket” test pits 18-1, 19-1, 192, and 19-3 provided additional archaeological sampling in the vicinity of OPA test pits 18, 19, and 28,
which yielded low densities of pre-contact Native American argillite and quartz chipping debris (Missio
and Jones 1992). The initial task of the archaeological site examination of the Area 2 Site was to define
the limits of the archaeological deposits. Thirty-two, 50-x-50 cm test pits organized within a 5 m
coordinate grid system were excavated atop a small knoll top peripheral to intensive level test pits (see
Figure 2-2). The Area 2 N0E0 site examination reference datum was established at the northwest side of
the knoll top at OPA test pit Number 18.
Following the excavation of site examination test pits, two, 1-x-1 m EUs were excavated in areas of
comparatively high artifact densities. Low-densities of Native American chipping debris were recovered
from each of the EUs. Only two of a proposed three to five EUs were excavated in the Area 2 Site due to
the generally low density of pre-contact Native American cultural materials from the site area. The Area 2
Site was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and no additional
archaeological investigations were recommended beyond the site examination level.
Archaeological Data Recovery Program - Area 1 Site
The primary objective of the archaeological data recovery at the Hanover Marketplace Area 1 Site was to
recover an adequate sample of archaeological data from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration and
S5W10 Concentration loci to assess the site’s type, content, and structure and to permit inter- and intrasite comparisons. PAL Inc. proposed accomplishing this objective by excavating a total of 70 m2 of the
Area 1 Site focusing on the S5W10 and Northeast Quadrant concentration areas. Data recovery
archaeological excavation combined with previous intensive and site examination testing resulted in the
total investigation of 84.25 m2 of the Area 1 Sites.
EUs of variable sizes were judgmentally located within each of the concentration areas during the
archaeological data recovery program. Ten, 2-x-2 m EUs (EUs 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 12, 14, 19, 20, and 23),
seven, 1-x-2 m units (EUs 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21), and one 1-x-1 m EU 22 were excavated within
the Northeast Quadrant Concentration for a total of 55 m2. Three, 2-x-2 m EUs (EUs 1, 2, and 4), 1-x-2 m
EU 3, and 1-x-1 m EU 5 were excavated within the S5W10 Concentration area for a total of 15 m2. All
archaeological test units were mapped relative to the N0E0 site datum established during the preceding
site examination survey. The location of the site datum was also recorded relative to USC & GS & State
Survey Disk 53 BG benchmark located on the west side of Route 53.
Area 1 Site data recovery EUs were mapped onto a master site plan using an optical surveyor’s transit.
Surface elevations for each of the unit’s specific sub-datum points were also recorded at this time. The
southwest corner or the most elevated corner of an EU was selected for use as an EU sub-datum. Vertical
36
PAL Report No. 488
Methodology
depth of excavation and artifact location within an EU were all recorded relative to a unit’s unique subdatum.
Data recovery EUs were excavated in arbitrary 5 cm levels to sterile subsoil. Excavated soils were
screened through ¼-inch hardware cloth. Artifacts greater than ¼- inch in size were collected and labeled
with appropriate provenience information (e.g. unit, level, soil stratum or feature, survey quadrant, etc.).
Scaled plan and profile drawings were made on measured paper for all archaeological features and artifact
concentrations observed during excavation. Field notes were recorded on standardized EU and feature
forms. Black and white photographs and color slides were taken of the site, fieldwork, archaeological test
units, features, and activity areas.
Charcoal from cultural features and natural subsoils were also collected from the Area 1 Site. Four
charcoal samples were submitted to Beta Analytic radiocarbon facility in Florida for radiocarbon dating.
Soils collected from cultural features, as well as from two off-site control locations and natural A and B
soil contexts within the site were subjected to soil flotation. Pollen samples were similarly collected from
cultural features and from off-site control areas during the data recovery program.
Laboratory Processing and Specialized Analyses
Processing
Cultural materials recovered from Area 1 and Area 2 sites, Hanover Marketplace during the site
examination and data recovery investigations were returned to PAL, Inc.’s facility in Pawtucket, Rhode
Island for laboratory processing. Cultural materials were organized by site and provenience, and recorded
and logged in on a daily basis. Cultural materials were sorted by type and either dry-brushed or cleaned
with tap water depending on the material or artifact type and condition.
Cataloguing
Cultural materials were sorted by type and catalogued into a hierarchically based custom program
designed using ALPHA4 database software. Materials which display similar attributes such as material,
color, size, functional, and typological classes were grouped and catalogued by lots. Materials lots were
stored in 2 ml thick polyethylene zip lock bags with acid free tags containing all provenience information.
Specialized Analysis of Cultural Materials
Lithic Analysis
Various morphological attributes of chipped-, ground-, or rough-stone tools were examined and collected
as an element of the archaeological surveys. Recorded lithic attributes include lengths, widths, thickness,
shoulder angles, manufacturing techniques, and wear patterns of all tools and artifacts. Artifact typologies
developed for the region (Fogelman 1992; Fowler and Hoffman 1991; MHC 1984; Ritchie 1971) were
also consulted to classify specific stone artifacts such as projectile points recovered from the site. Many of
these tools were considered temporally “diagnostic” due to their consistent and repeated regional
association with specific radiocarbon ages.
Culturally modified lithic materials, such as stone tools and chipping debris, were identified in terms of
material, size (0–1 cm, 1–3 cm, 3–5 cm, etc.), and color. A lithic-type collection, maintained at PAL and
containing materials from various source areas in New England and nearby regions such as New York
and Pennsylvania, was utilized in the identification of all lithic materials. Chipping debris was classified
as either flakes or shatter. Pieces of debitage showing evidence of a striking platform, bulbs of percussion,
PAL Report No. 488 37
Chapter Five
or identifiable dorsal or ventral surfaces were called flakes. Debitage without these attributes, and
exhibiting angular or blocky forms, were classified as shatter. Lithic debris was examined for edges that
had been modified by use wear or intentional retouch.
Lithic analysis aided in identifying activity areas, discerning different occupations, and reconstructing the
patterns of lithic resource procurement or the movement of such materials across the landscape. These
data were helpful with answering some of the data recovery research questions outlined in Chapter 2.
X-Ray Fluorescence and Petrographic Studies
Barbara Calogero (1991) has questioned the skill of some southern New England archaeologists to
identify and source lithic materials based on morphological criteria alone. The ability to accurately
identify some lithic materials recovered during PAL, Inc.’s archaeological investigations at the Hanover
Marketplace was supplemented through the use of petrological and geochemical techniques. Petrographic
thin sections and X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) analyses were employed to determine probable geological
formations or likely lithic source areas from where various materials recovered from the site may have
originated. Petographic thin sectioning involved cutting a thin slice of a rock, which was then ground
optically flat for view under a polarizing petrographic microscope.
XRF stimulates emission of X-rays by irradiating a sample with energies. Electrons orbiting the nuclei of
a sample’s atoms can be ejected from their orbits if they absorb sufficiently strong X-ray photons during
energy bombardment. During this process, higher energy level orbiting electrons drop to fill lower level
electron orbits vacated by the electrons ejected from the atom during irradiation. X-ray photons are
emitted from the atoms at this time. The energy of any emitted X-ray photons is equal to the difference in
energy levels between the two orbits of the transitioning electrons, and the wavelength of these photons,
which can be measured with detection devices, is unique for each element. Consequently, one can
determine the elemental constituents of a sample by determining the wavelength of the emitted X-ray
photons. Furthermore, the number of X-rays emitted from a sample per a given unit of time correlates
with the concentration of that element in any given sample. A pilot XRF study using various southern
New England volcanic materials (e.g. felsites, rhyolites, and hornfels) suggests distinctive geochemical
“signatures” may be unique to certain lithic source areas in the Boston Basin of southeastern
Massachusetts (Ritchie and Hermes 1990, 1992; Hermes and Ritchie 1997a, 1997b). A quantifiable
assessment of a lithic source area can be useful to studying pre-contact Native American lithic
procurement patterns and exchange networks.
Petrologic thin sections and geochemical analyses of selected debitage and artifacts was initiated by PAL
senior archaeologist Duncan Ritchie and conducted by O. Don Hermes of the Department of Geology,
University of Rhode Island. Thirteen lithic specimens were submitted to Don Hermes for petrologic
and/or geochemical analyses. Artifacts included lithic chipping debris and temporally diagnostic Early
Archaic and Middle Archaic projectile points. Selected artifacts were photographed and detailed
information on artifact type, color, size, weight, and presumed source area were recorded prior to
submission. Results of the petrographic studies are provided in Appendix G of this report.
Flotation Analysis
Selected soil samples obtained from cultural features and activity areas at the Area 1 and Area 2 sites
were subjected to flotation analysis. Soils were collected in the field using a clean masonry trowel and
were placed in clean 4 millimeter thick polyethylene bags. Provenience information was recorded on a
soil sample tag and placed within a smaller polyethylene bag along with the sample to maintain
provenience information. Flotation of soil samples was accomplished using the Model-A Flote-Tech
Machine, which utilizes a multi-modal flotation technique. The system circulates water in a closed loop
38
PAL Report No. 488
Methodology
between a water reservoir and a flotation tank. Provision is made for removing the residue from the
system without loss of water from the loop. A method of incorporating aeration into the water makes the
flotation process more efficient than conventional techniques. Using the system’s baffle, objects having a
specific gravity slightly greater than water are removed easily. Two mesh sizes are used in the system, a
coarse fraction screen measuring 1.0 mm in size and a fine fraction screen measuring 0.33 mm in size.
Following this process the recovered material was subsequently divided into heavy and light fractions.
The fractions are then scanned using both an illuminated desk magnifier fitted with a 3-diopter lens
(1.75x magnification) and a stereomicroscope with magnification ranges of 7x to 40x. Recovered cultural
materials and organic remains (e.g., carbonized seeds and nuts, bone, fish scales, charcoal, chipping
debris, and shell) were recorded, separated into plastic vials, and labeled. The scanned samples are boxed,
labeled, and curated along with the project’s cultural assemblage.
Faunal and Floral Analysis
PAL laboratory staff analyzed all faunal and floral materials recovered during field excavation and/or
through the processing of flotation samples. Faunal remains and botanical specimens were identified
using a combination of reference materials and PAL’s comparative collections.
Faunal remains from the Hanover Marketplace were cleaned, counted, and weighed per level by EU.
Bone was first separated into categories of calcined (burned) and non-calcined. Fragments that contained
recognizable physical attributes were identified to species. Characteristics of Feature 13 (i.e. large size
and depth, oval shape, presence of bone), exposed in data recovery EU 19 and site examination EU 3 in
the Northeast Quadrant Concentration within the Area 1 Site, suggested a potential for this feature to be a
Native American burial. PAL, Inc. retained outside consultants to examine the recovered bone
assemblage to confirm or refute the burial hypothesis. Calcined bone fragments recovered from Feature
13 were examined by physical anthropologist Dr. Michael Gibbons of the Department of Anthropology,
University of Massachusetts - Boston and Connecticut State Archaeologist Dr. Nicholas Bellantoni. Both
specialists agreed that the few identifiable pieces within the calcined bone assemblage most likely were
those of a small mammal such as a rodent and not human.
Seed and nut specimens recovered from cultural features during the flotation procedures were examined
under magnifications ranging from 10x to 200x, using a binocular dissecting microscope, to permit
species identification. Fragments of charred wood were broken transversely and tangentially with fingers
to obtain a cleaner surface to allow observation of patterns of pores and ray distributions necessary to
determine taxonomic designation. Floral data is included as Appendix F of this report.
Radiocarbon Dating
Seven charcoal samples (three site examination and four data recovery) from five distinct feature/test unit
contexts were submitted to Beta Analytic Inc. Radiocarbon Laboratory in Florida for radiocarbon dating
(see Appendix E). Submitted specimens included charcoal from Feature 1, Feature 2, Feature 8, and
Feature 13 and charcoal recovered from site examination test pit N40W5. Hanover Marketplace
radiocarbon dates are provided in Chapter 6.
Radiocarbon dating provides an interpretative tool for understanding pre-contact Native American sites.
Charcoal and other carbon bearing materials (bone and shell), which are often preserved on
archaeological sites, can be subjected to radiocarbon dating to obtain approximations of when these
remains died, which presumably coincides with the period of use and when a site was inhabited. All
living organisms absorb atmospheric carbon isotopes 12C and 13C, as well as the radioactive carbon
isotope 14C through the process of respiration. Any 14C present in a host organism is no longer exchanged
PAL Report No. 488 39
Chapter Five
with the biosphere following an organism’s death. Radioactive 14C trapped within once-living animal or
floral tissue begins to decay at a steady rate until it reaches a non-radioactive stable state. Radiocarbon
dating is accomplished by comparing the amount of radioactive carbon (14C) remaining within an organic
tissue sample with the known rate of radioactive decay for 14C and a calibration curve that documents the
changing proportions of atmospheric 12C, 13C, and 14C through time. In this way, an approximate age of
death, or more precisely a range of dates, are derived that record the time elapsed since an organism’s
death. Consequently, true radiocarbon “ages” do not represent single absolute dates, but rather a range of
dates within which there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the actual date falls. Radiocarbon ages are
expressed as radiocarbon years before present (B.P.) at the 95.4 percent confidence level. “Present” is
defined as 1950 A.D.
Radiocarbon years are abstract archaeological constructs that do not correlate with calendar dates at a one
to one ratio. Therefore, radiocarbon dates must be adjusted using available calibration curves to read them
as calendar ages. Translation of radiocarbon dates into calendrical dates was accomplished by the OxCal
(version 3.10) calibration program. All radiocarbon age ranges presented in this report are expressed at
the 95.4 percent confidence level.
Depositional Analysis
Discriminating distinct occupations and identifying specific activity areas at the Area 1 and Area 2 sites
was made possible by examining the spatial patterning of cultural materials (density, diversity, and
horizontal and vertical distribution) and features. This goal was further assisted through the production of
density contour maps using a combination of PAL, Inc.’s artifact catalog and the Surfer software
program. A depositional analysis permitted an assessment of the site’s history of occupation and use.
Feature Analysis
Feature analysis examined the spatial distribution (horizontal and vertical) and physical attributes of
Native American features contained within the Area 1 Site. An attribute format including size, surficial
morphology, shape in profile, fill types (colors and textures), construction mode, contents, and other
observable variables was used to determine the temporal/cultural affiliations, the probable function, and
depositional history of all features. Feature analysis also drew upon radiocarbon dating and the
identification of floral and faunal remains, which assisted in determining patterns of resource use and
aided in reconstructing the seasonality of occupation during the different time periods. The results of the
feature analysis provided some answers to questions about on-site activities, size of groups, length of
stay, intensity of occupation, and the role of the activity areas within the larger site area and within the
larger settlement systems.
Curation
Following laboratory processing and cataloging activities, all recovered cultural materials were placed in
acid-free Hollinger boxes with box content lists and labels printed on acid-free paper. These boxes are
stored at PAL, Inc. in accordance with state and federal curation guidelines until such time as a permanent
state repository is designated.
Public Education Component
A key element of any archaeological data recovery program is public outreach. Disseminating
information to the public began during the fieldwork element of the project. PAL, Inc. staff gave teachers
and three science classes from the St. Coletta School, located on Columbia Road adjacent to the Area 1
Site, site tours and discussed the pre-contact Native American archaeological record of the Area 1 Site
40
PAL Report No. 488
Methodology
and the North River area. Field crews also provided practical demonstrations of techniques of
archaeological excavation and discussed the archaeological processes.
Following the fieldwork, a narrated slide show and lecture entitled “Archaeological Excavations at the
Area 1 Site (19-PL-749), in Hanover, Massachusetts” was presented to the Cohannet and North River
chapters of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society by the Project Archaeologist. A paper entitled
“Archaeological Investigations at the Area 1 Site (19-PL-749), Hanover Marketplace Project Area,
Hanover, Massachusetts” was also presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Eastern States
Archaeological Federation in Albany, New York (Begley 1994).
PAL Report No. 488 41
CHAPTER SIX
RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
PAL contracted with the Carpionato Corporation to conduct archaeological site examination and data
recovery investigations within the Hanover Marketplace in accordance with relevant state laws. The
results of the field investigations for both of these surveys are summarized in Chapter 6 of this report.
Results of the Archaeological Site Examination
Area 1 Site
Site examination subsurface archaeological testing was designed to define the horizontal and vertical
limits of the Area 1 Site, assess the site’s internal structure and content, and to identify the age(s) or
cultural affiliation(s) of the site. A total of 103, 50-x-50 cm test pits was excavated within the Area 1 Site
during the archaeological site examination (see Figure 2-1). Northern and western site boundaries were
defined by the presence of natural steep slopes down to the adjacent wetland. No sterile test pits were
excavated in these areas, although artifact densities were extremely low typically consisting of a single
piece of debitage from test pits excavated along the sloping embankment below the 84-foot contour line.
It is unlikely that materials recovered from the sloping embankment were deposited at these areas by
human agents. A more parsimonious reason that explains why cultural materials were recovered from the
site’s sloping embankment is that these items migrated down slope from the high density activity area
situated upslope due to a number of natural processes such as erosion, soil creep, cryoturbation, or
bioturbation. The Area 1 Site’s southern limits were defined by 14 sterile test pits and low-density Native
American cultural materials recovered from deep plow zone stratigraphic contexts within few test pits in
the southern site area. An uneven ground surface with evidence for earth piles, depressions, and evidence
for olive brown fill that contained asphalt in three test pits excavated in the area indicated the southern
limits of the Area 1 Site had been disturbed.
Archaeological grid testing established that the Area 1 Site was contained within an approximate 2,750
m2 area. The greatest concentrations of pre-contact Native American cultural materials was recovered
from the northeastern limits of the testing area (Northeast Quadrant Concentration) between the N15 and
N65 gridlines from the Route 53 roadway cut westward to the W05 gridline. Moderate to low densities of
pre-contact Native American materials continued south and west to the steep drop to the adjacent
vegetated wetland. Following identification of the site’s boundaries, six, 1-x-1 meter EUs were excavated
within the identified Northeast Quadrant Concentration. Native American cultural materials were
recovered from all six of the EUs. The S5W10 Concentration area was located roughly 20 m southwest of
the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area along the S10, S5 and N0 grid lines (see Figure 2-1). This
artifact concentration measured roughly 150 m2, and was bordered to the west and south by a steeply
gouged borrow area. Low densities of felsite, quartzite, jasper, and quartz chipping debris and few
cultural materials including two bifaces of Blue Hills rhyolite and felsites, one Hingham Red Felsite
core/hammerstone, a quartz core, and calcined bone fragments were recovered from the S5W10
Concentration area.
A total of 3,558 prehistoric materials was recovered from the Area 1 Site during the archaeological site
examination (Table 6-1). The inventory of lithic tools from the Area 1 Site included Small Stemmed
42 PAL Report No. 488
Table 6-1. Pre-contact Native American Cultural Material by Depth, Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace, Site Examination.
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
PAL Report No. 488 43
Chapter Six
projectile points, untyped projectile point fragments, drills, scrapers, bifaces, quartz cores, one
hammerstone or lithic core adaptively reused as a hammerstone, a weight/net sinker, and a whetstone
possibly of argillite. Lithic debitage (flakes and shatter) recovered from the site during the site
examination included argillite (N=164), various felsites and rhyolites (N=1,582), hornfels (N=5), jasper
(N=4), quartz (N=1,485), quartzite (N=6) and unidentified lithic materials (N=20). Pre-contact Native
American cultural materials were recovered between 0 and 100 cm below the ground surface (cmbs) (see
Table 6-1). The majority of the Area 1 Site’s cultural materials were recovered from the A/B soil horizon
interface between 20 and 30 cmbs. In addition to the large lithic assemblage, fewer nineteenth and
twentieth century cultural materials were recovered between 0 and 20 cmbs from plowed stratigraphic
contexts at the Area 1 Site (see Appendix B).
Test Pits
As discussed in the Chapter 5, hand excavation of test pits resulted in the identification of two, spatially
discrete Native American activity areas within the Area 1 Site. The S5W10 Concentration area was
defined on the basis of moderate (50 to 100 pieces of chipping debris per m2) lithic densities. The
Northeast Quadrant high density concentration area generally yielded more than 100 pieces of chipping
debris per m2 with areas within the Northeast Quadrant Concentration yielding over 260 pieces of
debitage per m2 of excavated site area. In all, 3,125 cultural items or 88 percent of the Area 1 Site’s
assemblage was recovered from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration area.
Two cultural features were encountered in the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area of the Area 1 Site
as a result of the site examination survey. Cultural features were initially exposed in grid test pits and
were further evaluated with 1-x-1 m excavation units. Feature 1 was first exposed at a depth of 18 cmbs in
test pit N45E0 (Figure 6-1). The feature appeared as a dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/6) silt and sand
soil discoloration measuring some 20-x-34 cm that contrasted with the surrounding yellowish brown (10
YR 5/4) A2 soil horizon matrix. Continued excavation of test pit N45 E0 demonstrated that Feature 1
appeared to be a shallow (10 cm thick) pit-like anomaly that contained charcoal flecks and lithic chipping
debris (see Figure 6-1). Lithic artifacts recovered from the feature between 10 and 30 cmbs included one
quartz biface fragment, 48 felsite flakes, 16 quartz flakes, six Blue Hills rhyolite flakes, three Sally Rock
felsites flakes, two flakes of an unidentified volcanic material, and single flakes of argillite, hornfels, and
Saugus jasper. Fifty-five additional Native American artifacts were also recovered from outside of feature
contexts within test pit N45E0. These materials included an ovoid quartz scraper, a whetstone possibly of
argillite, a felsite biface fragment, and lithic debitage.
Area 1 Site Feature 2 was originally uncovered in the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area within test
pit N55E0 (Figure 6-2). Archaeological excavation resulted in the exposure of several large, relatively
flat, conglomerate (“pudding stone”) stones across the floor of the entire test pit between 20 and 30 cmbs.
The presence of these large flat stones and their apparent circular formation was curious as very few
stones of these sizes had been observed elsewhere within the Hanover Marketplace project area. Few
pieces of chipping debris and one dark gray felsite biface fragment were recovered from test pit N55E0
between 0 and 30 cmbs. An incised pre-contact Native American clay vessel rim sherd was also
recovered in apparent association with the stone arrangement. Additionally, charcoal fragments were
observed between 30 and 40 cmbs both within and below the stone feature surface. Continued excavation
of test pit N55E0 was temporarily suspended at 40 cmbs so that it might be further examined through the
excavation of an adjacent EU.
Excavation Units (EUs)
EU 1 was excavated contiguous to the west side of test pit N45E0 within which Feature 1 was first
exposed. No evidence of Feature 1 was present in the test unit, however, although few charcoal flecks
44
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-1. Plan and profile of Area 1 Site Feature 1 in test pit N45E0.
PAL Report No. 488 45
Chapter Six
Figure 6-2. Plan and profile of Area 1 Site Feature 2 in test pit N55E0.
46
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
were recovered from natural soil strata between 10 and 20 cmbs. Over 700 pieces of lithic chipping debris
of a variety of materials (i.e. felsite, quartz, rhyolite, argillite, jasper, Saugus jasper, Sally Rock felsites,
and an unidentified volcanic) were recovered from EU 1. Pre-contact Native American cultural materials
within EU 1 were most densely concentrated within the A2 Horizon between 20 to 30 cmbs. This
coincides with the high density layer and level of Feature 1 within adjacent test pit N45E0. Cultural
materials recovered from this level included chipping debris, biface fragments of quartz, felsite, and Sally
Rock felsites, a Native American clay pot sherd, one aboriginal pottery vessel sherd, three pieces of firecracked or fire-affected rock, and two pieces of calcined mammal bone (see Appendix B). The presence,
distribution, and densities of chipping debris and domestic debris such as fire-cracked rock, pottery,
charcoal flecks, and faunal remains suggested an “occupation” or “living surface” was present in the area.
Recovered material types suggest activities such as food processing and stone tool manufacturing
occurred in this area. This position is further supported by the analysis of a soil recovered from the area
between 40 and 50 cmbs. Archaeological materials including minute calcined bone fragments and 58
microflakes of quartz and felsites were recovered from the soil sample.
Charcoal recovered in association chipping debris, fire affected rocks, and a calcined bone fragment from
test pit N40W5 located approximately five meters southwest of Feature 1 produced a radiocarbon age of
3540±80 B.P. (Beta-55006). Calibration of this date using the OxCal (version 3.10) radiocarbon
calibration program suggests this charcoal and perhaps the Native American occupation that resulted in
the creation of Feature 1 dated to Late Archaic Period between 4090 and 3630 B.P. (2140 to 1680 B.C.)
(Table 6-2).
Table 6-2. Radiocarbon Results from Selected Features Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace.
Beta
Unit/
Material Measured age
2 sigma calibration*
Sample No.
Feature
(B.P.)
(BC/AD)
55004
Feature 2
Charcoal
3290±80
1760 to 1410 B.C.
55006
TP N40W5 Charcoal
3540±80
2140 to 1680 B.C.
* C14 dates calibrated using the OxCal (version 3.10) radiocarbon calibration program
2 sigma calibration*
(B.P.)
3710 to 3360
4090 to 3630
EU 3 was placed along the east side of test pit N55E0 to further investigate Feature 2 first exposed in the
test pit (see Figure 6-2). Cultural materials recovered from EU 3 included felsites, rhyolite, Saugus Jasper,
quartz, and argillite chipping debris, a quartz Squibnocket Stemmed projectile point, an untyped felsite
projectile point, and a burnt nut shell possibly of hickory. Twenty-five pieces of argillite, Blue Hills
rhyolite, felsite, and quartz chipping debris were recovered from A2 soil contexts between 10 and 20 cmbs
in EU 3. Thirteen additional pieces of quartz and felsite chipping debris, nine fire-cracked rocks, and
charcoal were recovered from the EU between 20 and 30 cmbs.
Feature 2, initially observed in test pit N55E0, was exposed at a depth of 13 cmbs within the southwestern
corner of EU 3. Feature 2 presented itself at the outset as an “oxidized” or reddened soil stain that
measured 50 cm in diameter. A dark gray felsite drill fragment was recovered from reddened feature
contexts at a depth of 18 cmbs. An additional 57 pieces of quartz, felsite, Sally Rock felsite, and Saugus
jasper chipping debris were recovered from feature soils between 20 and 30 cmbs. Feature 2 persisted
beneath its upper “oxidized” portion as a fire-cracked/burned rock “pavement” to a depth of 50 cmbs
(Figure 6-3). The Feature 2 burnt rock pavement was comprised of tightly packed small (5-x-7 cm),
medium (8-x-12 cm), and large (24-x-24 cm) conglomerate and granite stones within the northern twothirds of EU 3 and continuing to the north, east, and west. Continued excavation of the Feature 2
demonstrated that small- to medium-sized cobbles and flat rocks had been piled atop eleven large fireaffected conglomerate and granite platform stones that formed the base of the rock pavement between 40
and 50 cmbs. A total of 155 fire-cracked rocks and hundreds of burnt and fire-cracked stone fragments
PAL Report No. 488 47
Chapter Six
Figure 6-3. Profile of archaeological site examination EU 3 showing Feature 2.
48
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
were associated with Feature 2 within EU 3. Similar rock pavements have been unearthed at other
southeastern Massachusetts riverine sites such as Canoe River West (Simon 1982) and Riverside 2
(Waller 2009) suggesting they may have served to process (cook or dry) riverine food resources such as
fish, small game, and/or birds.
Fifty-three pieces of argillite, felsite, quartz, quartzite, Sally Rock felsite, and Saugus jasper chipping
debris were recovered from Feature 2 soils between 30 and 40 cmbs. Much of this debitage bore evidence
of heat exposure. Eighteenth pieces of quartz and felsites chipping debris and 75 fire-cracked/reddened
rocks were recovered from Feature 2 between 40 and 50 cmbs. Soil collected from Feature 2 and
subjected to soil flotation yielded 22 microflakes of quartz and felsite and one chenopodiaceae seed. A
Sally Rock felsite biface fragment and 16 pieces of Saugus jasper, Blue Hills rhyolite, felsite, and quartz
chipping debris were recovered from adjacent yellowish brown B1 subsoils at this same level.
A small, circular concentration of charcoal that measured roughly 25 cm in diameter was exposed within
the fire-affected rock concentration located in the northern limits of EU 3. Charcoal flecks were similarly
scattered throughout the burnt rock pavement and its associated fill soil. Charcoal collected from the 30 to
40 cmbs excavation level yielded a radiocarbon age of 3290±80 B.P. (Beta-55004). Calibration of this
date using the OxCal (version 3.10) radiocarbon calibration program suggests Feature 2 was created
during the Late/Transitional Archaic Period between 3710 and 3360 B.P. (1760 and 1410 B.C.) (see
Table 6-2).
Relatively high frequencies of lithic chipping debris (quartz, felsites, Sally Rock felsite, argillite, Saugus
jasper, and Blue Hills rhyolite) persisted beneath Feature 2 in EU 3 to 100 cmbs. Chipping debris from
the deeper levels of EU 3 was generally larger and blockier than that from Feature 2 suggesting bifacial
stone tool reduction and early stage shaping was represented by the underlying debitage assemblage,
while final stage bifacial shaping and finishing was more common at the feature level.
Site examination EUs 2, 4 and 5 were excavated within central portions of the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area between test pits along the E0 and W5 grid lines at the Area 1 Site (see Figure 2-1).
Soil strata generally consisted of a plowed A Horizon underlain by a yellowish brown B Horizon subsoil.
Two-hundred and sixty-four pre-contact Native American cultural materials (262 pieces of chipping
debris, a Small Stemmed projectile point, and a granitic weight/netsinker) were collected from EU 2
during the site examination survey. Lithic debitage from the EU included Blue Hills rhyolite, argillite,
quartz, felsite, hornfels, Hingham red felsite, Saugus jasper, Mattapan banded felsite and an unidentified
volcanic material. The argillite flakes (N=65) from EU 2 alone account for 40 percent of Area 1 Site
argillite assemblage. The concentration of recovered chipping debris from between 20 and 30 cmbs was
suggestive of the presence of a lithic workstation at this level within the test unit. EU 4 and EU 5 yielded
similarly high artifact counts. One quartz core, two felsite untyped projectile point tip/midsection
fragments, a felsite scraper, and 569 pieces of lithic chipping debris were recovered from EU 4. Cultural
materials from nearby EU 5 included 267 pieces of lithic debitage, a quartz scraper, and a felsite drill.
EU 6 was excavated between grid test pits N65E0 and N65W5 within the northernmost limits of the Area
1 Site’s Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area. Thirty-nine pieces of lithic debitage and one quartz
Small Stemmed projectile point were recovered between 0 and 40 cmbs from EU 6.
In summary, archaeological site examination of the Area 1 Site resulted in the recognition of two activity
areas where a range of tasks such as resource procurement, processing, and disposal and the manufacture
and maintenance of chipped stone tools occurred. Recoveries of calcined bone, a carbonized nut shell and
seed, and a net sinker indicate terrestrial and riverine/wetland natural food resources were targeted for
exploitation by the site occupants. Temporally and culturally diagnostic stone tools and radiocarbon
assays of 3540±80 B.P. and 3290±80 B.P. indicate the site was occupied during the Late and/or
PAL Report No. 488 49
Chapter Six
Transitional Archaic Periods and that additional information could be gleaned from further archaeological
study of the site.
Area 2 Site
Similar to the Area 1 Site, the goal of the archaeological site examination of the Area 2 Site was to
determine the site’s horizontal and vertical limits and study its internal structure, composition, and age. A
total of 32, 50-x-50 cm test pits was excavated within the Area 2 Site the site examination survey (see
Figure 2-2). The northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the site were defined by the excavation of
sterile test pits. An activity eroding slope formed the western limits of the site. Following identification of
the site’s boundaries, two, 1-x-1 meter EUs were excavated in areas of anticipated artifact concentrations.
Archaeological grid testing established that the Area 2 Site was contained within an approximate 375 m2
area. Native American cultural materials were limited to the 42 pieces of chipping debris and one drill
fragment (Table 6-3; Appendix A). No cultural features were identified within the Area 2 Site during the
archaeological site examination. The base/midsection of a Blue Hills rhyolite drill was recovered from a
depth of 20 to 30 cmbs within test pit N0E25. The base/midsection of this artifact is consistent with
Neville-like projectile points diagnostic of the Middle Archaic Period (7500-5000 B.P.). No other tools
were collected from the Area 2 Site. Lithic materials recovered from the Area 2 Site included quartz,
felsites, and lithic materials morphologically similar to Blue Hills rhyolite, Lynn Volcanic complex
felsites, Hingham Red felsites, and Saugus “jasper”. Cultural materials from the site were generally
recovered in very low densities. The deposit of primarily rhyolite flakes from EU 2 represents the only
artifact concentration identified at the site.
Table 6-3. Pre-contact Native American Cultural Material by Depth, Area 2 Site, Hanover
Marketplace, Site Examination.
Material
Blue Hill Rhyolite
Felsite
Quartz
Saugus Jasper
Total
Function
Drill
Flake
Flake
Flake
Shatter
Flake
0-10
3
2
4
Depth (Centimeters below ground surface)
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
1
3
18
4
5
1
1
10
7
24
0
1
Total
1
24
11
4
1
1
42
The Area 2 Site yielded very limited and little new categories of archaeological data despite producing
some information on lithic raw material use and preference and circumstantial evidence for a Middle
Archaic Period occupation. The site was determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places and no additional investigation of the Area 2 Site was recommended beyond the
archaeological site examination.
Archaeological Data Recovery - Area 1 Site (19-PL-749)
Archaeological data recovery of the Area 1 Site commenced in the late fall of 1992. Hand excavation of
2-x-2 m, 1-x-2 m, and 1-x-1 m EUs was undertaken within the Northeast Quadrant and S5W10
concentration areas identified during the preceding archaeological site examination survey resulting in the
recovery of 26,692 pre-contact Native American cultural materials (Figures 6-4 and 6-5 and Appendix C).
Fourteen cultural features including fire pits, storage/refuse pits, and lithic workshops were also exposed
within the site area during the data recovery investigation.
50
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-4. Locations of archaeological test units, Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1
Site.
PAL Report No. 488 51
Chapter Six
Figure 6-5. Locations of archaeological test units, S5W10 Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1
Site.
52
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
S5W10 Concentration Area
A total of 15 m2 of the S5W10 Concentration Area was investigated during data recovery investigations.
The S5W10 Concentration Area represents the smaller of two activity areas identified during the
archaeological site examination of the Area 1 Site (Figure 6-6). Data recovery excavations within this
concentration area yielded Native American chipping debris, chipped and ground/pecked stone tools, and
four cultural features. Cultural materials from the S5W10 Concentration Area during data recovery
investigations were recovered at depths ranging between 0 and 110 cmbs. The lithic, feature, and organic
assemblages from the S5W10 Concentration Area collected during data recovery investigations are
discussed below.
Chipped and Ground/Pecked Stone Tools
Sixteen chipped and ground or pecked stone tools were recovered from the S5W10 Concentration Area
during data recovery investigations. Stylistically identifiable projectile points from the S5W10
Concentration Area included one quartz Small Stemmed projectile point (EU 1), a quartz Squibnocket
Triangle projectile point (EU 2), and a Neville-type projectile point manufactured out of a pink/black
felsites (EU 1). Both of the quartz projectile points from the S5W10 Concentration Area were crudely
made and appear to have been broken during the manufacturing process. The stem of the Small Stemmed
projectile point from EU 1 tapers to a rounded base and has uneven, rounded shoulders typical of the Late
Archaic Squibnocket Stemmed Small Stemmed projectile type in Massachusetts (see Ritchie 1969, 1971).
The Neville-type projectile point from EU 1 was limited to a basal fragment with one remnant shoulder.
The notched base is 1.24 cm in width and has a remnant shoulder angle of 102º. Breakage of this artifact
appears to have resulted from use or perhaps impact.
One drill/perforator manufactured out of a light gray felsite was recovered from EU 2 located in the
S5W10 Concentration Area during data recovery investigations. This artifact is quite symmetrical and has
a straight blade, even shoulders, and a well-formed base (Figure 6-7a). The drill measures 4.21 cm in
length, although a small portion of its tip was missing, 2.51 cm in maximum width, and 0.83 cm in
thickness. Its base measured 0.93 cm in width and had shoulder angles of 104º and 112º. Basal attributes
(width, thickness, shoulder angle, and length) of the drill are all consistent with metrics for known Middle
Archaic Neville projectile points recovered elsewhere from southeastern Massachusetts and New
England.
Non-diagnostic chipped stone tools recovered from the S5W10 Concentration area included seven bifacial
tool fragments or rough bifaces broken and subsequently discarded during various stages of the
manufacturing process. Recovered bifacial tools or tool fragments were manufactured of quartz (N=2),
Blue Hills rhyolite (N=2), argillite (N=1), felsites (N=1), and arkose (N=1). One of the Blue Hills rhyolite
bifaces is a well-thinned tip/midsection that broke along a natural fracture plane during the latter stages of
stone tool manufacture. The gray arkose biface is a mostly complete example crossmended from four
separate fragments (Figure 6-8). This tool is flat measuring 9.45 cm in length, 8.52 cm in maximum
width, and 0.66 cm in thickness. This artifact has been bifacially flaked around its exterior lateral edge.
Evidence for abrading also extended from one of its edges towards the middle of its dorsal surface. The
arkose biface recovered from the S5W10 Concentration Area may have functioned as a scraper or
chopper.
Other chipped stone tools from the S5W10 Concentration Area include a worked felsite flake (EU 4) and
a fragment of a slate knife (EU 1). The worked flake measured 3.67 cm in length, 2.79 cm in maximum
width, and 0.72 cm in thickness and was manufactured out of a light grayish-brown felsite with
conspicuous quartz phenocrysts. Irregular unifacial retouch and/or some light use wear were evident
PAL Report No. 488 53
Chapter Six
Figure 6-6. Contour map showing the relatively densities of Native
American lithic materials within the Northeast Quadrant and S5W10
concentration areas, Area 1 Site.
54
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-7. Drills from the Area 1 Site (a. EU 2-SE, 40-45
cmbs; b. EU 9-NW, 25-30 cmbs; c. EU20-NE, 10-15 cmbs).
Figure 6-8. Arkose biface from EU 2, S5W10 Quadrant
Concentration Area, Area 1 Site.
PAL Report No. 488 55
Chapter Six
along one of its edges on its dorsal surface. The slate knife from EU 1 is a spall fragment with a bifacially
modified edge exhibiting heavy use wear. It measures 9.68 cm in length, 4.58 cm in maximum width, and
1.12 cm in thickness.
Ground/pecked stone tools from the S5W10 Concentration Area included an incomplete Braintree Slate
bannerstone/atlatl weight (EU 1), a cobble tool of undetermined material (EU 2), and granite
hammerstone (EU 1). The slate atlatl weight from EU 1 was roughly circular and channeled with a partial
perforation (Figure 6-9). This artifact measured 3.35 cm in length, 3.10 cm in maximum width, and 1.75
cm in thickness. The perforation measured 0.57 cm in diameter and extended 0.41 cm into artifact. The
partially finished surfaces appear pecked and numerous striations are apparent. The incomplete atl atl
weight from EU 1 appears to have been broken during the latter stages of its manufacture. The cobble tool
from EU 2 is a flat, discoidal stone that measures 8.87 cm in length, 8.18 cm in maximum width, and 1.8
cm in thickness. Both of its flat surfaces have been polished and some evidence for battering or crushing
is evident along its outer edge. Evidence for flaking is visible on either side of the artifact (Figure 6-10).
Overall morphology of this artifact is consistent with net sinkers or stone weights recovered elsewhere
from archaeological contexts within southeastern Massachusetts and southern New England. A granite
hammerstone with one working end that bears evidence for battering and/or crushing was recovered from
between 15 and 20 cm within EU 1 at the Area 1 Site. This artifact measures 6.61 cm in length, 5.91 cm
in maximum width, and 3.35 cm in thickness.
Lithic Chipping Debris
Lithic chipping debris represented the largest artifact class recovered from the S5W10 Concentration
Area during data recovery investigations. Chipping debris from this concentration outnumbered stone
tools by a ration of 81:1. A total of 1,549 pieces of lithic chipping debris or debitage (flakes and shatter)
was recovered from the S5W10 Concentration Area during archaeological data recovery investigations of
the Area 1 Site. The total debitage assemblage is increased to 1,619 when those materials recovered
during the preceding site examination are added to the total tallies of chipping debris. Debitage is the
lithic waste product generated during chipped stone tool manufacture. A variety of lithic materials
including quartz, felsite, Braintree slate, arkose, quartzite, argillite, and several unidentified materials was
recovered from the concentration area (Figure 6-11). Quartz dominates the debitage assemblage, followed
by rhyolite, felsites, Braintree slate, arkose, quartzite, argillite, and Saugus jasper. Felsites from the
S5W10 Concentration Area include many varieties such as Sally Rock Felsite (N=4), Mattapan Banded
Felsite (N=2), Hingham Red Felsite (N=45), and a non-specific felsites category (N=141) discriminated
on the basis of their physical attributes such as color, texture, phenocryst size and shape, etc.
Chipping debris was recovered from between 0 and 110 cmbs within the S5W10 Concentration Area
(Figure 6-12). Distributions of lithic debitage by depth at the Area 1 Site are presented in Table 6-4. More
than 51 percent (N=792) of the S5W10 Concentration Area chipping debris was recovered from a narrow
25 cm range between 5 and 30 cmbs. Moderate densities of chipping debris were also recovered at depths
ranging between 30 and 65 cmbs (N=532; 34.5 percent). Comparatively fewer pieces of debitage (N=225;
14.5 percent) were recovered from between 65 and 110 cmbs. EUs 2 or 5 were responsible for all of the
chipping debris recovered from depths greater than 50 cmbs at the S5W10 Concentration area of the Area
1 Site. Chipping debris from this concentration area was generally with the 0 to 1 cm and 1 to 3 cm size
categories accounting for more than 89 percent of the total debitage assemblage (12.6 and 76.5 percent,
respectively). Size class distributions for chipping debris recovered from the Area 1 Site during data
recovery investigations are presented in Table 6-5.
56
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Table 6-4. Vertical Distribution of Chipping Debris Recovered during Archaeological Data Recovery of the Area 1 Site.
S5W10 Concentration Area
EU01
Depth
00-05
05-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100
100-105
105-110
110-115
115-120
120-125
125-130
130-135
135-140
140-145
145-150
150-155
155-160
160-165
165-170
170-175
175-180
180-185
185-190
190-195
195-200
200-205
205-210
210-215
215-220
220-225
Total
Northeastern Quadrant Concentration Area
EU02
EU03
EU04
EU05
EU06
EU07
EU08
EU09
EU10
EU11
EU12
EU13
EU14
EU15
EU16
EU17
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
25
34
35
62
43
24
19
2
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
16
37
6
11
10
18
7
16
11
12
11
5
6
23
12
9
5
18
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
41
35
19
13
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
59
98
88
50
16
6
7
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
6
5
5
7
19
23
48
59
68
72
65
38
38
20
16
9
9
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
47
115
123
192
209
148
127
84
15
14
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
98
330
211
365
487
110
115
41
25
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
142
115
263
309
292
149
93
97
96
10
17
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
93
188
297
83
309
30
63
19
18
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
250
265
132
385
517
1,077
1,788
1,611
1,135
2,992
EU18
EU19
EU20
EU21
EU22
EU23
.
23
409
348
277
843
235
332
160
99
55
63
31
47
15
36
7
11
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
20
36
31
59
54
29
12
16
5
4
2
2
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
102
119
386
559
478
175
94
44
33
12
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
18
64
72
83
99
98
95
61
38
40
22
31
9
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
121
242
321
365
247
118
44
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
137
63
245
240
319
155
65
14
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
22
48
51
46
35
9
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
19
106
79
104
44
30
9
3
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
22
52
51
124
74
42
25
16
6
2
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
60
51
168
63
78
57
63
252
182
89
84
24
13
20
16
15
12
7
2
4
2
2
2
1
.
29
70
217
234
206
174
87
77
64
54
59
56
25
16
14
37
45
42
61
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
78
246
234
242
133
36
13
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
90
106
89
50
30
9
6
3
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
68
112
533
485
160
87
7
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
276
2,065
750
1,545
1,241
248
396
422
2,880
998
406
1,477
975
REU3
Total
.
142
163
143
228
128
81
44
24
17
4
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
46
57
53
26
45
25
37
17
27
22
13
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
401
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
61
84
214
120
131
83
108
277
219
106
111
46
26
20
16
15
12
7
2
4
2
2
2
1
144
1,172
2,280
3,248
3,891
4,657
2,671
1,536
932
562
319
284
197
147
84
95
72
74
57
88
24,232
PAL Report No. 488
57-58
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-9. Atl atl weights from the Area 1 Site, Hanover
Marketplace (a. EU 1-NW, 30-35 cmbs; b. EU 20-NE, 15-20
cmbs).
Figure 6-10. Cobble tool/stone weight from EU 2, Area 1
Site.
PAL Report No. 488
59
Chapter Six
Figure 6-11. Lithic Materials from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site.
Figure 6-12. Lithic chipping debris by depth from the Site S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site.
60
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Table 6-5. Distribution of Chipping Debris by Size Range Recovered during the Data Recovery
Program of the Area 1 Site.
Size Range (Centimeters)
3-5
5-7
7-9
0-1
1-3
Unit
EU01
EU02
EU03
EU04
EU05
EU06
EU07
EU08
EU09
EU10
EU11
EU12
EU13
EU14
EU15
EU16
EU17
EU18
EU19
EU20
EU21
EU22
EU23
REU3
14
25
6
48
103
135
249
231
307
837
72
659
196
538
459
61
92
122
1,419
285
95
431
282
278
185
205
102
298
395
895
1,461
1,304
753
1,991
186
1,257
511
935
698
173
284
280
1,374
654
283
972
609
99
44
26
20
28
15
43
72
68
66
158
14
125
38
63
80
12
17
17
80
54
24
66
77
17
6
8
3
9
4
3
6
4
9
5
4
18
5
7
4
1
2
2
4
4
3
6
5
6
Total
6,944
15,904
1,224
128
9-11
11-13
Total
.
1
1
1
.
1
.
2
.
1
.
5
.
2
.
1
1
.
3
.
1
2
1
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
250
265
132
385
517
1,077
1,788
1,611
1,135
2,992
276
2,065
750
1,545
1,241
248
396
422
2,880
998
406
1,477
975
401
24
6
2
24,232
Native American Features
The site examination and data recovery investigations of the Area 1 Site were designed to locate and
investigate any Native American cultural features (e.g. hearths, burnt rock features, refuse/storage pits,
etc.) that might have been present at the site. Features are an important sources of archaeological
information as they often contain charcoal or other organic materials useful for radiocarbon-dating,
provide indicators of site function and/or season of occupation based on the presence of associated seeds,
shells, or animal remains, and sometimes provide clues as to the duration of a site’s occupation and to the
size of the occupying population. Recorded attributes of Area 1 Site archaeological features included
content, morphology, type of fill, size, and their relationship to surrounding soils, cultural materials, and
other features. The structure and contents of a feature, when analyzed in tandem, reflect on-site activities
and may assist in a functional definition of a site or occupation area (Stewart 1977, Barnes 1980).
Four cultural features (Features 1, 2, 3, and 4) were identified and excavated within the S5W10
Concentration Area of the Area 1 Site during the data recovery investigations (Table 6-6). Features were
first identified at depths ranging between 30 and 75 cmbs (Figure 6-13 and see Table 6-6). The shallowest
cultural feature (Feature 2; 30 cmbs) was not Native American but represented a post-contact period farm
animal burial. The three remaining features excavated within the S5W10 Concentration Area included
both fire-related features and/or storage/refuse pits (see below). Stewart (1977) defines a fire pit is any
subsurface facility that produced in situ evidence for fire. Fire-related features include hearths, cook fires,
PAL Report No. 488 61
Chapter Six
Figure 6-13. Depths of cultural features from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace.
62
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Table 6-6. Inventory of Cultural Features Identified within the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1
Site Data Recovery Program.
Feature
No.
Associated
Units
Vertical Extent
(cmbs)
Associated Cultural
Materials
01
EUs 2 and
5
75-110 cmbs
02
EUs 2 and
5
03
04
Interpretations
Comments
chipping debris, charcoal
fire
pit/hearth;
associated
arkose/Braintree
slate
lithic
workshop
historic intrusion;
C14: 7740 ± 150 B.P. (Beta
#60199)
30-100 cmbs
chipping debris, precontact and post-contact
period bone, post-contact
period materials
historic
animal
burial, bovine (?)
historic
burrow
EU 5
50-80 cmbs
chipping debris, charcoal
fire pit
rodent disturbance (upper
strata);
high density Braintree slate
EU 5
70-90 cmbs
chipping debris, charcoal
flecks
fire pit
semi-circular
dark
brown/black stain; historic
intrusion;
high
density
Braintree slate
intrusion;
earth ovens, and/or similar features that served as sources of warmth or were used for heating. Ritchie and
Funk (1973) further define hearths as small basin-shaped “masses of pure charcoal”. Stewart (1977) notes
that larger fire pits could have served as earth ovens, especially in cases where they were lined with rocks
or if they contained the remains of plant materials. Storage pits include pits that were dug for purposes of
holding materials either on a temporary or permanent basis (Luedtke 1985). Ethnographic analogy and
numerous archaeological examples indicate storage pits often were reused as receptacles for trash and
perhaps as latrines following once they had their stores removed (see Ritchie and Funk 1973; Barnes
1980).
All cultural features within the S5W10 Concentration Area of the Area 1 Site were contained within EU 2
and/or EU 5. Feature 2 appeared at 30 cmbs as mottled dark yellowish brown, yellowish brown, and light
olive brown fine sand anomaly along the eastern edge of EU 2 and in the northern third of EU 5 (Figure
6-14). The upper levels of the Feature 2 fill in both EU 2 and EU 5 produced nineteenth century field
debris (e.g., whiteware, pearlware, kaolin pipe bowl fragment, nails). Pre-contact Native American
cultural materials including lithic chipping debris were also recovered from the feature fill. Large, robust
bones of a bovine limb were eventually exposed within Feature 2 between 90 and 100 cmbs. Feature 2
was roughly square shaped in plan at this level and is interpreted as a post-contact period animal burial
(see Figure 6-14).
Continued excavation of Feature 2 demonstrated that this historical feature upon two pre-contact Native
American cultural features (Features 1 and 4) (Figure 6-15). Feature 1 first appeared as a dark yellowish
brown (10 YR 3/4) soil stain with associated charcoal flecks exposed in the B1 subsoil at a depth of 65
cmbs within EU 2. Feature 1 became more defined by 75 cmbs appearing as a circular (62 cm diameter)
very dark brown (10 YR 2/2) soil stain with associated charcoal that contrasted with the surrounding light
olive brown (2.5 Y 5/6) B2 subsoil. Feature 1 yielded 145 pieces of chipping debris (arkose, Blue Hills
rhyolite, quartz, felsite, and Braintree slate, unidentified material) from between 70 and 110 cmbs and a
Blue Hills rhyolite biface fragment from between 90 to 95 cmbs. Some of the debitage recovered from
PAL Report No. 488 63
rodent
Chapter Six
Figure 6-14. Plan of cultural features from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site.
64
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-15. Profile of cultural features from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site.
PAL Report No. 488 65
Chapter Six
Feature 1 appears to have been exposed to heat. Arkose and Braintree slate account for approximately 68
percent of the chipping debris recovered from Feature 1. All of the arkose flakes recovered from the
S5W10 Concentration Area during data recovery investigations were either recovered from Feature 1
(N=42; 80.8 percent) or in association with Feature 1 (N=10; 19.2 percent). Additionally, the arkose
biface depecited in Figure 6-8 was also recovered in association with Feature 1 from EU 2. Similarly, 57
Braintree slate chipping debris from Feature 1 (N=57) accounts for 32 percent of the Braintree slate
debitage assemblage recovered from the Area 1 Site S5W10 Concentration Area. Soil flotation of seven
soil samples collected from Feature 1 between 80 and 105 cmbs yielded additional debitage (N=91) of
predominantly felsite and quartz and approximately 30 charred acorn (Quercus sp.) and/or hickory (Carya
sp.) nut fragments.
The volume, density, and type of lithic materials from Feature 1 suggests the feature and this section of
the site area served as a discrete lithic work station and disposal locale for raw materials not commonly
used in projectile point manufacture. Charcoal recovered from Feature 1 between 75 and 95 cmbs
produced a radiocarbon date of 7740±150 B.P. (Beta-60199). Calibration of this radiocarbon date using
the OxCal Radiocarbon Calibration Program (version 3.1) yields an Early/Middle Archaic calibrated date
range of between 9,000 and 8,300 B.P. or 7050 to 6350 B.C. A felsite drill with Middle Archaic Nevillelike basal attributes (see Figure 6-7a), recovered from 40 to 45 cmbs in EU 2, and a Neville projectile
point base from contiguous EU 1 provide added evidence of a Middle Archaic Period occupation within
this section of the S5W10 Concentration Area.
Features 3 and 4 in EU 5 were fairly shallow, basin shaped pits that contained charcoal and lithic chipping
debris. Feature 3 appeared as a dark yellow brown (10 YR 3/4) soil anomaly observable at 50 cmbs at the
B1/B2 subsoil interface. Feature 3 was semi-circular in plan measuring some 80 cm in length and 40 cm in
width. The feature extended into the south and east walls of EU 5 (see Figure 6-14). Feature 3 soils had
been partially impacted by rodent activity at 50 cmbs. Cultural materials from Feature 3 were recovered
between 50 and 80 cmbs and consisted almost entirely of chipping debris (N=109). Lithic debitage
recovered from the feature included small amounts of argillite, felsite, quartzite and Hingham red felsite,
moderate amounts of Blue Hills rhyolite and quartz, and a high density of Braintree slate. No cultural
materials were recovered below 80 cmbs in Feature 3 despite continuation of the feature to 100 cmbs.
Feature 4 was exposed in the northeastern portion of EU 5 70 cmbs. Feature 4 presented as a very dark
brown (10 YR 2/2) soil anomaly with associated charcoal flecks visible at the B1/B2 soil interface. The
feature was excavated to a depth of 90 cmbs. Feature 4 had been truncated by the excavation of the
historic cow burial (Feature 2) to the north. Twelve pieces of chipping debris (Braintree slate, felsite,
unidentified material) were recovered from feature fills between 70 and 80 cmbs. Most of these materials
showed evidence of being exposed to heat.
Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area
Site examination archaeological survey indicated the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area of the Area
1 Site was the larger of site’s two activity areas encompassing an estimated 650 m2 of site area. Data
recovery excavations within the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area of the Area 1 Site recovered a
range of artifacts from between 0 and 225 cmbs and 10 cultural features.
Chipped Stone Tools
A total of 309 chipped and ground/pecked stone tools was recovered from the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area during the data recovery program. The assemblage of chipped/ground stone tools
included 129 projectile points and projectile point fragments, 146 bifacial tool blades, two
drills/perforators, two scrapers, 18 unifacial tools, five cores, one pestle, one atlatl weight, one cobble
66
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
tool, one large chopper, one whetstone, one paintstone and one hammerstone. An inventory of Native
American stone tools recovered from Area 1 Site during data recovery investigations is presented in Table
6-7. Metrics on selected projectile points and projectile point performs from the Area 1 Site are included
in the back of this report (see Appendix D).
144
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
11
20
6
10
8
13
3
11
4
2
3
2
8
4
5
12
5
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
5
3
2
9
131
1
1
2
12
1
1
6
1
Total
Whetstone
Worked Flake
Utilized Flake
Unid. Stone
Tool
Uniface
Scraper
Paintstone
Pestle
2
1
1
1
Projectile Point
Preform
Hammerstone
2
Drill
Total
1
Core
1
3
1
2
8
11
14
10
15
3
17
9
14
3
2
2
1
11
7
2
1
6
1
Cobble Tool
Biface
1
Chopper
Atl atl
EU01
EU02
EU03
EU04
EU06
EU07
EU08
EU09
EU10
EU11
EU12
EU13
EU14
EU15
EU16
EU17
EU18
EU19
EU20
EU21
EU22
EU23
REU3
Blade
Unit
Table 6-7. Distribution of Native American stone tools from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace.
6
6
1
3
10
23
38
19
29
12
35
13
28
11
4
6
3
22
15
7
21
11
2
325
Approximately 49 percent of the chipped stone tools recovered from the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area during data recovery investigations were manufactured out of quartz. Felsite (38
percent) is the second most abundant lithic type used in the manufacture of chipped stone tools. The
felsite category can be further subdivided into tools manufactured out of a gray felsite (28 percent),
Hingham red felsite (3 percent), Sally Rock felsite (2 percent), Saugus jasper (1.5 percent), Lynn
Volcanic Complex (black/dark gray) felsite (1.5 percent), Blue Hills rhyolite (1.5 percent), and Attleboro
red felsite (0.5 percent). Other material types represented in the Area 1 Site stone tool assemblage
includes argillite (4 percent), combined non-local extra-regional or “exotic” materials including chert,
PAL Report No. 488 67
Chapter Six
Pennsylvania jasper, chalcedony (combined 4 percent), quartzite (2 percent), arkose and slate (2 percent),
unidentified volcanics (0.5 percent), and unidentified material (0.5 percent).
Projectile Points
A total of 131 projectile points and projectile point fragments was recovered from the Area 1 Site during
data recovery investigations (Table 6-8). Projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area will be discussed by type below.
Table 6-8. Projectile and projectile point fragments from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace.
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
6
5
3
2
14
40
11
4
27
1
2
1
1
1
1
22
65
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
TOTAL
2
Unidentified Volcanic
Quartzite
Quartz
Lynn Volcanic
Jasper
1
Saugus Jasper
4
3
Hingham Red Felsite
Felsite
Chert
Chalcedony
Blue Hills Rhyolite
1
Rhyolite
Bifurcate-based
Neville
Stark
Brewerton
Brewerton-eared
Squibnocket Stemmed
Squibnocket Triangle
Small Stemmed
Atlantic
Susquehanna broad
Wayland notched
Orient
Jack’s Reef corner notched
Untyped
Total
Attleboro Red Felsite
Type
Argillite
Lithic Material
5
7
1
2
2
11
5
32
9
6
3
5
1
42
131
Three bifurcate-based projectile points were recovered in the Northeast Quadrant concentration during
archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site (Figure 6-16). Bifurcate-based projectile points are
temporally diagnostic of Native American occupations dating to the Early Archaic (10,000–7500 B.P.)
Period. A mostly complete bifurcate of Lynn Volcanic felsite was recovered from the northeast quadrant
of EU 8-NE at a depth of 40-45 cmbs in association with Feature 8 at the site (see Figure 6-16a). This
point is well made measuring some 4.16 cm in length, 0.65 cm in thickness, and 3.47 cm at its shoulder
with a basal width of 1.96 cm. The edges of the broad equilateral, triangular blade are slightly serrated,
and one of its barbs appears to have broken from use. Its deeply notched base bears no evidence of
grinding.
A second, broken bifurcate-based projectile point manufactured out of a tan rhyolite was recovered in
three parts (a tip/midsection and two basal fragments) from the northwest quadrant of EU 8 and the south
half of adjacent EU 11 (see Figure 6-16b). Weathering of this material may be partially responsible for its
tan color. The tip/midsection of the projectile point was recovered from Feature 6 located in the northwest
quadrant of EU 8 at a depth of 25-30 cmbs. The larger of the two basal fragments of this projectile was
68
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-16. Bifurcate-based projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 8-NE, 40-45 cmbs; b. fragments from EU
8 and EU 11; c. EU 16-South Half, 35-40 cmbs).
also recovered from Feature 6 in EU 8 at a depth of 35-40 cmbs. A second, cross-mending basal fragment
was recovered from the south half of adjacent EU 11 at a depth of 30-35 cmbs. Reconstruction of the
point base indicates the base of this projectile was 2.03 cm in width with a thickness of 0.67 cm.
The third bifurcate-based projectile point was recovered from the south half of EU16 at a depth of 35-40
cmbs (see Figure 6-16c). The base/midsection of this projectile was manufactured out of Blue Hills
Rhyolite and measures 3.06 cm in length, 3.17 cm in shoulder width, and 2.17 cm at its base. This artifact
is thicker than the other two bifurcate-based projectile points from the Area 1 Site measuring 0.81 cm in
thickness. Its basal ears are also more rounded with its bifurcate base less pronounced (shallower) than
the previous two examples (see Figure 6-16). Shoulder symmetry has been altered by retouch or
reworking with shoulder angles of 84 and 77 degrees.
Middle Archaic (7500–5000 B.P.) projectile points were also well-represented at Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area (Figure 6-17). Six complete or mostly complete Neville projectile points, five
basal/midsections, and one base with a partial shoulder were recovered from EUs 7, 9, 10, and 11
excavated in the concentration area. Descriptions of these projectiles and projectile point fragments are
provided in Appendix D-1. The physical characteristics of these projectile points and fragments are
consistent with Neville points described by Dincauze (1976) from the Neville Site in Manchester, New
Hampshire. Neville points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area were all manufactured out of
various types of felsites that included Blue Hills Rhyolite (N=2), a gray felsite, a dark gray felsite, Saugus
jasper, and Hingham red felsite.
A complete argillite Stark type projectile point was recovered from between 30 and 35 cmbs within the
southwest quadrant of EU 23. The Stark point exhibits symmetrical edges with an uneven base and
PAL Report No. 488 69
Chapter Six
Figure 6-17. Representative Middle Archaic Period projectile
points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site (a. EU 9-NE, 30-35 cmbs; b. EU 7-NE, 30-35
cmbs; c. EU 11-North half, 15-20 cmbs; d. EU 7-SE, 25-30
cmbs; e. EU 10-NW, 45-50 cmbs; f. EU 23-SW, 30-35 cmbs).
shoulders (see Figure 6-17f). The projectile measured 5.29 cm in length, 2.52 cm in maximum width, and
was 0.79 cm thick.
Late Archaic Period projectile points were well represented at the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area
of the Area 1 Site. Recovered Late Archaic Period projectile points included Laurentian Tradition
Brewerton eared (Figure 6-18), Small Stemmed (Figure 6-19), and Squibnocket stemmed and triangle
varieties (Figures 6-20 and 6-21). Three Laurentian Tradition Brewerton projectile points were recovered
from data recovery EU 10 while a fourth was recovered from EU 11. Brewerton projectile points were
manufactured out of a brownish-gray quartzite (N=1) and several varieties of felsites (N=3). The quartzite
Brewerton point from EU 10 appears to have been broken during use and bore some evidence for basal
retouch. The grayish tan felsite Brewerton eared projectile point from the northeast quadrant of EU 10
exhibits good edge to edge symmetry, but has a poorly thinned base (see Figure 6-18a). A Brewerton
eared notched projectile point manufactured out of Blue Hills Rhyolite was recovered from between 15
and 20 cmbs in the northeast quadrant of EU 10 (see Figure 6-18b). This projectile exhibits near perfect
symmetry with well thinned edges and base. The remaining Brewerton eared projectile point was
recovered between 50 and 55 cmbs in EU 11. This projectile was manufactured out of a dark gray felsite.
Its poorly defined notches, thick midsection, and broken tip suggest the artifact was discarded prior to its
completion.
The majority of the Late Archaic Period projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area were associated with the Small Stemmed lithic tradition (Small Stems/Wading River, Squibnocket
Stemmed, and Squibnocket Triangles). Forty-two Small Stemmed points and point fragments, 19 of
70
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-18. Representative Brewerton-eared projectile points
from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site
(a. EU10-NE, 25-30 cmbs; b. EU11-North half, 50-55 cmbs).
Figure 6-19. Small Stemmed projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU19-NE, 10-15 cmbs; b. EU21-East half,
20-25 cmbs; c. EU 9-NW, 25-30 cmbs; d. EU13-North half, 45-50 cmbs; e.
EU11-South half, 30-35 cmbs; f. EU10-NE, 25-30 cmbs).
PAL Report No. 488 71
Chapter Six
Figure 6-20. Squibnocket stemmed projectile
points
from
the
Northeast
Quadrant
Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 7-SE,
30-35 cmbs; b. EU 7-NW, 15-20 cmbs; c. E 09SW, 10-15 cmbs; d. EU19-SE, 105-110 cmbs; e.
EU14-NW, 20-25 cmbs; f. EU 7-NW, 25-30
cmbs).
Figure 6-21. Squibnocket triangle projectile points from the
Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU21-East
half, 10-15 cmbs; b. EU 7-SW, 15-20 cmbs; c. EU15-East half, 20-25
cmbs; d. EU20-NW, 15-20 cmbs).
72
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
which were complete or mostly-complete, were recovered during the data recovery investigations. Four
temporally contemporaneous and culturally affiliated Squibnocket Triangle projectile points were also
recovered from the site. A significant portion of the Small Stemmed point assemblage (19 of 42; 45
percent) was recovered in association with quartz lithic workshop Feature 9 exposed within EUs 12, 14
and 22 at the site. Nevertheless, all of the units excavated within in the Northeast Quadrant concentration
save for EU 6, yielded Small Stemmed tradition projectile points. The majority of the Small Stemmed
tradition projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area (87 percent) were
manufactured out of quartz. Two Small Stemmed and one Squibnocket Triangle were manufactured out
of quartzite while three stemmed points were manufactured out of a Lynn Volcanic felsite, argillite, and a
chalcedony.
Like the Late Archaic Period, Transitional Archaic Period (3600–2500 B.P.) projectile points were quite
common from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area of the Area 1 Site. This assemblage is
comprised of both well-made, finished projectile points apparently broken in use and poorly made,
unfinished or rejected points. Transitional Archaic Period projectile points cover the entire Susquehanna
Tradition and include eight Atlantic points, three Wayland Notched, six Susquehanna Broad, and five
Orient Fishtails (Figures 6-22 through 6-25). Nineteen (86 percent) of the Transitional
Archaic/Susquehanna Tradition projectile points were manufactured out a felsitic material that included
gray and purple felsites, as well as Hingham red felsite and Lynn Volcanic felsite. Other lithic materials
used in the manufacture of Transitional Archaic Period projectile points included a gray/green chert for
one of the Atlantic projectiles points, a Susquehanna Broad point manufactured out of Pennsylvania
jasper, and Orient Fishtails of quartz and quartzite. In addition to projectile points, a dark gray/banded
chert knife with Susquehanna tradition attributes was recovered from EU 15 excavated within the site (see
Figure 6-25a).
The base and midsection to a jasper Jack’s Reef Corner Notched projectile point represents the only
Woodland Period projectile point recovered from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area during data
recovery investigations (Figure 6-26). Jack’s Reef Corner Notched projectile points are indicators of
Middle Woodland Period (1600–1000 B.P.) occupations in southern New England. The projectile was
recovered from EU 12 between 20 and 25 cmbs. Its blade is well-thinned, but asymmetrical. The tip and
one of its basal corners and notches were apparently broken by use.
Non-descript Chipped Stone Tools and Stone Tool Fragments
Forty-three untyped projectile points/fragments were recovered from the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area of the Area 1 Site. Artifacts such as types primarily included projectile point tips or
tip/midsection fragments manufactured from a variety of lithic materials that included quartz (N=22),
felsite (N=18), argillite (N=1), Pennsylvania jasper (N=1), and one unidentified volcanic material (see
Appendix B).
Two drills were recovered from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area during data recovery
investigations. The first drill was recovered from between 40 and 45 cmbs within the southeast quadrant
of EU 02. This artifact was manufactured out of a greenish black chert morphologically similar to
Normanskill chert, which outcrops in eastern New York (see Figure 6-7c). It is missing its tip and a
portion of its base. A complete grayish-green felsites drill was recovered from between 25 and 30 cmbs
within the northwest quadrant of EU 09 (see Figure 6-7b). This artifact measures 5.58 cm in length, 2.24
cm in maximum width, and 0.7 cm in thickness. The felsite drill from EU 09 is well made with uniform
edges and an expanding base. Some evidence of use wear is evident along its tip and edges.
PAL Report No. 488 73
Chapter Six
Figure 6-22. Representative Atlantic type projectile points from
the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a.
EU20-SE, 20-25 cmbs; b. EU 8-NE, 15-20 cmbs; c. EU 8-SW,
40-45 cmbs; d. EU 8-NE, 20-25 cmbs; e. EU10-SW, 10-15 cmbs;
f. EU23-NW, 20-25 cmbs; g. EU 8-NE, 20-25 cmbs).
Figure 6-23. Representative Susquehanna Broad projectile points from the
Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 6-NW, 20-25 cmbs;
b. EU 7-NE, 15-20 cmbs; c. EU12-NW, 10-15 cmbs; d. EU12-NW, 20-25 cmbs; e.
EU 8-NW, 20-25 cmbs).
74
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-24. Wayland Notched projectile points from
the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1
Site (a. EU14-SW, 5-10 cmbs; b. EU 8-SE, 10-15 cmbs;
c. EU14-NE, 10-15 cmbs).
Figure 6-25. Orient Fishtail projectile points from
the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site (a. EU15-West half, 10-15 cmbs; b.
EU18-East half, 15-20 cmbs; c. EU19-SE, 5-10
cmbs; d. EU 7-NW, 20-25 cmbs).
PAL Report No. 488 75
Chapter Six
One hundred and forty-six bifacial tool and tool
fragments were recovered from the Northeast
Quadrant Concentration Area. Nine of the bifacial
tools were identified as projectile point preforms
(see Appendix D-2). Projectile point performs
were manufactured out of quartz (N=6), Sally
Rock felsite (N=1), argillite (N=1), and chert
(N=1). Thirty-nine complete or mostly complete
bifaces were recovered from the Northeast
Quadrant Concentration Area. Representative
bifaces
from
the
Northeast
Quadrant
Concentration Area are depicted in Figures 6-27
and 6-28. Bifaces were manufactured out of
quartz (N=72; 49 percent), felsite (N=61; 42
percent), argillite (N=8; 5.5 percent), and chert,
arkose, slate, and unidentified lithic materials
(N=5 total; combined 3.5 percent). Recovered
bifaces ranged from 2.10 cm to 11.75 cm in
length, 1.49 cm to 7.33 cm in maximum width,
and between 0.43 cm and 4.26 cm in thickness.
The morphological attributes of these bifaces are
summarized in Appendix D-3. On average,
bifaces
from
the
Northeast
Quadrant
Concentration Area of the Area 1 Site were three
times as long as they were wide.
Figure 6-26. Jack’s Reef Corner Notched
projectile point from data recovery EU 12 at the
Additional edge tools from the Northeast Area 1 Site.
Quadrant Concentration Area included a quartz
scraper and a quartzite scraper, both of which were roughly tear-drop in shape, a quartzite bifacially
worked chopper, one quartz cobble tool, and 18 unifacial tools. Unifacial tools were manufactured out of
quartz (N=10), felsites (N=6), chalcedony (N=1), and slate (N=1). Five remnant quartz cores were also
recovered from the concentration area. Each of this was recovered in association with dense quartz
chipping debris and projectile points that correlated with Features 9 and 13 (see below).
Ground/Pecked Stone Tools
Several ground or pecked stone tools were recovered from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area of
the Area 1 Site. One of them included a pestle manufactured out of an unidentified metamorphic material
from the southwest quadrant of EU 20. This artifact measures 21.5 cm in length, 4.64 cm in maximum
width, and 3.66 cm in thickness and has a mass of 448.1 g. Visible evidence of use is apparent on either
end of the pestle, as well as some visible polish on the body likely created by handling and use (Figure 629).
The second groundstone tool from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area included a fragment of a
slate atlatl (spear thrower) weight. This notched artifact was recovered from the northeast quadrant of EU
20 between 15 and 20 cmbs. The atlatl weight measures 6.98 cm in length, 3.47 cm in maximum width,
and 0.55 cm in thickness and is broken at one end, just to one side of the two symmetrical notches (see
Figure 6-9b). The dorsal surface has been pecked and polished while the ventral surface is rough. Its
edges are ground and polished. The notches, centered at the top and bottom of the artifact, are deeply
76
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-27. Representative bifaces from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU12-NW, 25-30 cmbs; b. EU13-South half, 25-30 cmbs; c.
EU11-North half, 35-40 cmbs; d. EU14-NW, 20-25 cmbs; f. EU09-SE, 15-20 cmbs;
f. EU10-SW, 15-20 cmbs; g. EU06-SE, 30-35 cmbs; h. EU07-SE, 30-35 cmbs; i.
EU10-35-40 cmbs; j. EU19-SW, 25-30 cmbs).
Figure 6-28. Representative large bifaces from the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU17-South half, 25-30 cmbs; b. EU14-NW,
20-25 cmbs; c. EU08-SW, 45-50 cmbs).
PAL Report No. 488 77
Chapter Six
Figure 6-29. Stone pestle from EU 20, Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site.
ground and incised into the body of the artifact. Two less pronounced notches are visible to one side of
the prevalent notches (see Figure 6-9b). This series of notches provided a means of hafting the weight to
the spear thrower. It appears as if this artifact was broken during manufacture.
A slate abrading stone was recovered in association with a quartz workshop/lithic station (Feature 09)
located at the interface of the A and B Horizons within EU 22. The abrading stone measures 4.51 cm in
length, 2.84 cm in maximum width, and 0.87 cm in thickness. It appears ground and pecked and has two
deep grooves on one side of the artifact.
A lithic hammerstone from EU 13 remains the only additional ground/pecked stone tool from the
Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area.
Lithic Chipping Debris
A total of 22,693 pieces of lithic debitage (flakes, shatter) was recovered during the data recovery
archaeological excavations at Area 1 Site Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area. A variety of lithic
types comprise the material assemblage (Figure 6-30). Quartz, followed by felsites, account for over 90
percent of the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area debitage assemblage. Felsites include a number of
varieties, which can be differentiated from one another on the basis of physical attributes such as color,
phenocryst type, texture and weathering. Felsite types included a gray/grayish tan variety (31 percent),
Blue Hills rhyolite (4.6 percent), Sally Rock felsite (2.8 percent), Lynn Volcanic felsite (1.6 percent),
Hingham red felsite (1.3 percent), and Saugus jasper (0.5 percent). The remainder of the Northeast
Quadrant Concentration Area chipping debris assemblage consisted of argillite (2.5 percent), unidentified
(1.6 percent), unidentified volcanic material (0.5 percent), quartzite (0.4 percent), sandstone and slate (0.2
percent), and non-local or “exotic” lithic materials (i.e. chalcedony, chert, jasper; combined 0.3 percent).
Two hornfels flakes were also recovered from the excavation area. Unidentified lithic materials were
typically too fragmentary to be identified or had been fired altering their physical appearances.
78
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-30. Lithic chipping debris materials from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area,
Area 1 Site.
Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area chipping debris was dominated by flakes that ranged between 1
and 3 cm in size (65 percent). Chipping debris between 0 and 1 cm in size comprised the next greatest
size category at 29.5 percent. Five percent of the debitage assemblage ranged between 3 and 5 cm in size,
while only a trace amount (0.5 percent) greater than 5 cm in length. The predominance of smaller flakes
from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area implies that secondary and tertiary lithic reduction
stages (bifacial thinning and finishing) were the primary chipped stone manufacturing activities that were
conducted on site.
Chipping debris was uniformly distributed between 0 and 55 cmbs with its highest occurrence between 25
and 30 cmbs (Figure 6-31). A secondary, though lesser “spikes” in chipping debris was also observed
between 115 to 120 cmbs and 140 to 145 cmbs in the stratigraphic coloumn (see Figure 6-31).
In addition to “macro”-flakes (those greater than ¼ of an inch in size) recovered during hand screening of
soils within the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, approximately 1,750 microflakes were recovered
from soil samples collected from the field and subjected to soils flotation in the lab. Similar to the
debitage recovered during the screening process, microflakes recovered during soils flotation were
dominated by quartz and felsite.
PAL Report No. 488 79
Chapter Six
Figure 6-31. Lithic chipping debris by depth from the Site Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area, Area 1 Site.
Paintstone
A small paintstone or piece of ochre was recovered from between 140 and 145 cmbs within Feature 13
identified within the southeast quadrant of EU 19. The ochre fragment was recovered in association with
black (10 YR 2/1) charcoal and a cluster of fire-cracked/affected rock. Ochre fragments were also
recovered from Feature 13 soil samples collected from 100 to 105 cmbs and 195 to 200 cmbs.
Native American Features
Ten cultural features (Features 5 through 14) were identified and excavated within the Northeast Quadrant
Concentration Area during archaeological data recovery investigations at the Area 1 Site. Identified
cultural features included fire-related pits, food processing and storage pits, fire-cracked rock
concentrations, and lithic workshops. Burnt rock pavement Feature 2, initially exposed in the
southwestern corner of site examination EU 03, was also further examined as a result of the excavation of
80
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
EU 19. Depths for the cultural features excavated within the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area are
depicted in Figure 6-13.
Feature 5 was exposed at a depth of 45 cmbs in the southwest quadrant of EU 6 and continued into the
south half of EU 11. The feature appeared as a roughly circular dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/6) soil
discoloration with associated charcoal surrounded by a dark brown (7.5 YR 3/4) “ring” or leaching zone
(Figure 6-32). Feature 5 measured approximately 60 cm in diameter and extended to 92 cmbs into the B2
subsoils (Figure 6-33). Natural, gravelly B2 subsoils abut Feature 5 to the southwest (see Figure 6-32).
Twenty-three pieces of quartz, Blue Hills rhyolite, felsite, and Hingham red felsite chipping debris,
charcoal, and one piece of calcined bone were recovered from Feature 5 during archaeological
excavation. Quartz and felsite microflakes (37 total) and two unidentified seeds were also recovered from
Feature 5 following flotation of sampled soils.
Feature 6 was exposed in the northeast quadrant of EU 8, southeast of Feature 5 exposed in EUs 6 and 11
(see Figure 6-32). Feature 6 appeared as a roughly 60 cm, strong brown (7.5 YR 4/6) soil stain at a depth
of 25 cmbs in the B Horizon. This feature was basin-shaped in profile and continued to a depth of 65
cmbs (Figure 6-34). The tip/midsection and basal portion of a bifurcate base projectile point (see Figure
6-16b) was recovered from Feature 6 between 25 and 30 and 40 and 45 cmbs, respectively. The missing
basal portion of this projectile point was recovered immediately west of Feature 6 at a depth of 30 to 35
cmbs in the southern half of EU 11. A second bifurcate base projectile point (see Figure 6-16a) was
recovered in association with Feature 8 between 40 and 45 cmbs in the northeast quadrant of EU 8 (see
Figure 6-4). Quartz, and felsite debitage (25 total), calcined mammal bone (N=7), one unidentified
calcined bone fragment, and charcoal were also recovered from Feature 6 during archaeological
excavation. Soils flotation resulted in the recovery of additional charcoal, calcined bone fragments,
quartz, felsite, and quartzite microflakes (38 total), and uncharred polygonaceae, gramineae, aceraceae,
and chenopodiaceae seeds.
Feature 7 was exposed at a depth of 25 cmbs in northwest corner of EU 12 (Figure 6-35). Feature 7
appeared as an oval dark reddish brown (5 YR 3/4) stain that extended to a depth of 30 cmbs located
along the northwestern perimeter of quartz debitage concentration Feature 9 (see below). The top of
Feature 7 appears to have been impacted by historical plowing. Cultural material recovered from feature
fills included charcoal flecks, quartz and felsite chipping debris (69 total), and an untyped projectile point
tip of Pennsylvania jasper. Numerous quartz and felsite flakes, a jasper Jack’s Reef Corner Notched
projectile point (Figure 6-26), a felsite Susquehanna Broad projectile point (see Figure 6-27d), and one
chert (see Figure 6-27a) and one quartz biface were recovered from the plow zone/B Horizon subsoils
peripheral to Feature 7. Cultural materials including calcined bone, charcoal, quartz and felsite
microflakes (60 total), and four unidentified seeds were recovered during soil flotation of Feature 7 fill. A
thin charcoal scatter was situated immediately south of Feature 7 along the western edge of the Feature 9
quartz concentration area.
Feature 8 was exposed approximately one meter east of Feature 6 in EU 8 (see Figure 6-32). Feature 8
was exposed at the B1/B2 interface at a depth of 45 cmbs. Feature 8 presented as a dark yellowish brown
(10 YR 3/6), roughly 50 cm diameter circular stain with associated charcoal. Feature 8 was basin-shaped
in profile and continued to 65 cmbs (see Figure 6-34). One gray felsite and three Hingham red felsite
flakes, charcoal, and fire-cracked rock were recovered from the feature during archaeological excavation.
Few quartz and felsite microflakes were also recovered from feature soils subjected to soils flotation. A
bifurcate base projectile point was recovered immediately west of Feature 8 between 40 and 45 cmbs (see
Figure 6-16a). Feature 8 is interpreted as a fire pit. Charcoal from the feature yielded a radiocarbon age of
3510 ± 90 B.P. (Beta 67934).
PAL Report No. 488 81
Chapter Six
Figure 6-32. Plan of Native American cultural features 5, 6, and 8 in EUs 6, 8, and 11, Area 1 Site.
82
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-33. Feature 5 stratigraphic profile of EU 6, Area 1 Site.
PAL Report No. 488 83
Chapter Six
Figure 6-34. Features 6 and 8 stratigraphic profiles in EU 8, Area 1 Site.
84
PAL Report No. 488
Figure 6-35. Plan of Feature 9 in EUs 12, 14, 20, and 22, Area 1 Site.
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
PAL Report No. 488 85
Figure 6-36. Plan of Feature 10 at 20 cmbs in EU 21, Area 1 Site.
Chapter Six
86
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Feature 9 was located within the south-central portion of the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area in
EUs 12, 14, 20, and 22 (see Figure 6-35). Feature 9 was first identified in EU 12 and exposed at the
topsoil/subsoil interface between 20 and 25 cmbs in the north half of EU 14. Feature 9 appeared strong
brown (7.5 YR 5/6) in color in the northwestern quadrant of EU 14 and dark yellowish brown (10 YR
4/6) elsewhere. Hand excavation resulted in the recovery of quartz debitage. Charcoal and calcined bone
were recovered in association with quartz chipping debris from along the north wall of EU 14 within 10
cm of feature excavation. EUs 20 and 22 were opened in proximity to EUs 12 and 14 to further
investigate Feature 9’s appearance, nature, and content. Cultural materials from Feature 9 included six
Small Stemmed projectile points, three untyped quartz projectile point fragments, one untyped Hingham
red projectile point fragment, 14 quartz, one chert, and five felsite bifaces, six unifacial quartz tools, a
rhyloite utilized flake, two quartz core fragments, slate whetstone, fire-cracked rock, calcined bone
(N=91), and over 3,700 pieces of chipping debris, nearly 87 percent of which was quartz. Non-quartz
debitage included felsite, argillite, chert, quartzite, rhyolite, and Saugus jasper. The majority of the
calcined bone was recovered in association with the town charcoal deposits located within the central
feature area exposed in the northeast quadrant of EU 14 (see Figure 6-35). Soils flotation yielded
additional calcined bone fragments, charcoal, quartz and felsite microflakes, pieces of fire-cracked rock,
and uncharred aceraceae, chenopodiaceae, and polygonaceae seeds.
Feature 9 and that portion of the Area 1 Site investigated by EUs 12, 14, 20, and 22 appears to represent a
significant locus of Small Stemmed Tradition activity with 19 (59 percent) of the Small Stemmed
projectile points recovered during data recovery investigations being collected from this comparatively
small 13m2 area. Feature 9 is interpreted as a lithic workshop area that produced quartz chipping debris,
bifaces, and Small Stemmed Tradition projectile points.
Feature 10 was located at the plow zone/subsoil interface at a depth of 20 cmbs in the eastern half of EU
21 (Figure 6-36). Feature 10 appeared as a small fire-cracked rock concentration with associated charcoal
flecking that measured roughly 50 cm x 50 cm. Cultural materials recovered in association with Feature
10 included a quartzite Small Stemmed projectile point and argillite, felsite, quartz, Attleboro red felsite,
Hingham red felsite, Lynn Volcanic felsite, and Sally Rock felsite. Calcined bone, charcoal, quartz and
felsite microflakes, and uncharred gramineae and aceraceae seeds were collected from soil samples
subjected to flotation.
Feature 11 was exposed immediately southwest of Features 5 and 6 in EU 13 (Figure 6-37). The upper
portion of this feature was obscured by a rotting root along the west wall of the test unit. Following the
removal of the root intrusion, Feature 11 appeared as a dark yellowish brown and yellow brown (10 YR
4/6 mottled with 10 YR 5/8) soil anomaly that contrasted with the natural yellowish brown (10 YR 5/6)
B1 subsoil. Feature 11 was amorphous in plan and appears to have been non-cultural in origin likely
created as a result of nearby tree growth and decay.
Features 12 and 14 were exposed within the southern portion of the Northeast Quadrant concentration in
EU 23 (Figure 6-38). Feature 12 presented as a dense concentration of fire-cracked rocks situated at the
A/B Horizon interface at a depth of 20 cmbs. A portion of the feature had been impact by historic
plowing. Two charcoal concentrations were observed within feature along the west wall of EU 23.
Several unidentified calcined bone fragments, a red, “oxidized” area along the east wall, and ashy
surrounding some of the larger rocks were also associated with the individual rocks that comprised the
identified rock platform or pavement. Feature 12 continued into B1 subsoil terminating at a depth of 35
cmbs.
Cultural materials including a felsite Atlantic projectile point base/midsection, felsite biface fragment,
argillite Stark projectile point, a quartz biface fragment, and untyped quartz projectile point basal
PAL Report No. 488 87
Chapter Six
Figure 6-37. Plan of Feature 11 in EU 13, Area 1 Site.
88
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-38. Plan of Features 12 and 14 in EU 23, Area 1 Site.
PAL Report No. 488 89
Chapter Six
fragments were recovered in association with Feature 12. Additionally, more than 400 pieces of debitage
(argillite, felsite, quartz, quartzite, sandstone and unidentified lithic material) were also recovered in
association with the feature stones. Morphological attributes of the two quartz projectile point bases are
consistent with Small Stemmed Tradition projectile points. Charcoal collected from site examination test
pit N40W5 located in proximity to EU 23 yielded a radiocarbon age of 3540 ± 80 B.P. suggesting Feature
12 was constructed during the Late/Transitional Archaic Period. Flotation of soils sampled between 25
and 30 cmbs from Feature 12 produced contained calcined bone fragments, quartz and felsite microflakes
(10 total), small pieces of fire-cracked rocks, and 14 uncharred chenopodiaceae seeds. A second sample
collected between 30 and 35 cmbs similarly yielded calcined bone fragments, quartz and felsite
microflakes (10 total), fragments of red ochre, and uncharred chenopodiaceae and aceraceae seeds (20
total).
Feature 13 was located in the south half of EU 19 within the northern Northeast Quadrant Concentration
Area of the Area 1 Site. EU 19 was established contiguous to the north wall of site examination EU 3 in
order to fully investigate site examination Feature 2 (Figure 6-39). Fire-cracked rock, charcoal, chipping
debris and a felsite biface were recovered Feature 2 during the hand excavation of EU 19. Charcoal,
calcined bone, quartz and felsite microflakes, and aceraceae and unidentified seeds recovered following
flotation of a soil sample collected from Feature 2 between 30 and 35 cmbs. A portion of Feature 2 was
also present in the eastern half of EU 18 located of the southwest corner of EU 3 (see Figure 6-39).
Chipping debris, charcoal, a piece of a quartz core, and over 100 pieces of fire-cracked rock ranging in
size from 5 to 25 cm were recovered from Feature 2 in EU 18. Charcoal, microflakes, few uncharred
chenopodiaceae, aceraceae, and unidentified seeds were also recovered Feature 2 soils sampled from
between 40 and 45 cmbs in EU 18.
Over 400 pieces of lithic chipping debris (quartz, Blue Hills rhyolite, gray felsite, Sally Rock felsite, and
argillite) were recovered from between 50 and 100 cmbs as excavation of EU 19 continued. The majority
of the chipping debris was recovered from the south half of the excavation unit. A quartz biface tip
fragment and the midsection to an untyped quartz projectile point were recovered from the southeast
quadrant of EU 19 between 60 and 65 cmbs and 90 and 95 cmbs, respectively. A large gray felsite cobble
fragment was also recovered from the southeastern quadrant of EU 19 between 80 and 85 cmbs. Large
rocks of this size were infrequent in the sandy B1 matrix. The cobble was split in half and appeared firereddened. Although several pieces of charcoal were collected from the unit, there were no discernible
concentrations.
A large light yellowish brown (10 YR 6/4) semi-circular soil discoloration first appeared in the B Horizon
subsoil at a depth of 100 cmbs. This anomaly was designated Feature 13. Continued excavation revealed
Feature 13 to be an oval dark yellowish brown (10 YR 3/4) soil discoloration with a dark brown (10 YR
3/3) silt, sand, and charcoal deposit located along the western edge of the feature (Figure 6-40). Feature
13 encompassed nearly the entire south half of EU 19 where it measured roughly 160 cm along its
east/west axis. It was clear at this point that Feature 13 continued southward into site examination EU 3.
EU 3 (renamed data recovery test unit REU3) was re-opened and excavated to a depth of 100 cmbs to
expose more of the feature. Feature 13 presented as a circular dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/6) soil
anomaly with a dark yellowish brown 10 YR 3/4) core with associated fire-cracked rocks at 150 cmbs
(see Figure 6-40). A black (10 YR 2/1), roughly 90 cm long charcoal and sand deposit was exposed along
the west edge of the feature. Excavation of REU 3 was discontinued at 175 cmbs with Feature 13 being
bisected along the shared wall of units REU3/EU19. Excavation of EU 19 continued to 245 cmbs where
the profile of Feature 13 was exposed in its entirety (Figure 6-41).
Pre-contact Native American cultural materials recovered from Feature 13 between 100 and 225 cmbs
included 1,714 pieces of lithic chipping debris (predominantly quartz), charcoal, calcined bone fragments,
fire-cracked rocks, two quartz Small Stemmed projectile points, three quartz and one Sally Rock felsite
90
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-39. Plan of Feature 2 at 30 cmbs in EUs 18 and 19 and site examination EU3, Area 1 Site.
PAL Report No. 488 91
Chapter Six
Figure 6-40. Plan of Feature 13 data recover EU19 and site examination EU3, Area 1 Site.
92
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Figure 6-41. East and west profile of EU19 showing Feature 2 and Feature 13, Area 1 Site.
PAL Report No. 488 93
Chapter Six
biface fragments, one quartz cobble tool, and one ochre/possible paintstone fragment. Charcoal sampled
from Feature 13 between 110 and 115 cmbs yielded a radiocarbon date of 4600 ± 90 B.P. (Beta 63082).
Flotation of soil samples collected from Feature 13 yielded an additional 976 microflakes or quartz,
felsite, and quartzite, pieces of calcined bone, charcoal, fire-cracked rocks, ochre, and uncharred
chenopodiaceae, gramineae, and aceraceae seeds. Feature 13 is interpreted as an exceptionally large
refuse pit underlying burnt rock platform Feature 2. Calcined bone fragments from Feature 13 were
examined by physical anthropologist Dr. Michael Gibbons (Department of Anthropology, UMassBoston) and Dr. Nicholas Bellantoni (Connecticut State Archaeologist) to determine if they were
potentially human and assess whether or not Feature 13 was a potential burial feature. Both experts
agreed that identifiable bone fragments from Feature 13 were those of a small mammal such as a rodent.
Feature 14 was exposed at a depth of 40 cmbs in the northeast corner of EU 23 (see Figure 6-38). Feature
14 appeared as a dark yellowish brown mottled with a strong brown silty sand semi-circular soil stain
with associated charcoal that measured approximately 50 cm in plan. Feature 14 continued to a depth of
75 cmbs. Cultural materials recovered from Feature 14 included four calcined bone fragments, several
pieces of charcoal, a quartz biface, one flake of an unidentified lithic material, and one piece of quartz
shatter. Additional materials recovered during soils flotation included more charcoal and calcined bone
fragments, uncharred chenopodiaceae and gramineae seeds, fragments of red ochre, fire cracked rock, and
numerous quartz and felsite microflakes (approximately 200 total). The greatest concentration of chipping
debris was sampled from the very bottom of Feature 14. Feature 14 is interpreted as a storage/refuse pit.
Post-contact Period Cultural Materials
Nineteenth and twentieth century post-contact period cultural materials were recovered from across the
Hanover Marketplace project area during both the site examination (Table 6-9) and data recovery (Table
6-10) archaeological surveys. Post-contact period cultural materials included domestic and construction
items and skeletal remains recovered from a historic farm animal burial. Domestic items recovered from
the area included ceramic sherds (whiteware, pearlware, glazed and unglazed redware), kaolin pipe
fragments, bottle glass shards, and several pieces of coal. Recovered construction items included brick
fragments, window glass shards, and machine cut nails and wire nails. Post-contact period cultural
materials were primarily recovered from site area topsoils (organic layer and plow zone) between 0 and
20 cmbs. The plow zone within the southern limits of the Area 1 Site was noticeably deeper persisting in
some cases to approximately 50 cmbs.
Charcoal
A total of 42 wood charcoal samples was collected during data recovery investigations of the Area 1 Site.
Four charcoal samples were submitted to Beta Analytic for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dates from
the Area 1 Site are presented in Table 6-11.
94
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Investigations
Table 6-9. Nineteenth and twentieth century cultural materials recovered during the archaeological
site examination of the Area 1 and Area 2 Sites, Hanover Marketplace.
Site
Area 1
Material
Brass
Brick
Ceramic
Coal
Glass
Historic Bone
Iron
Metal
Pearlware
Red Bodied Coarse
Red Coarse Unglazed
Whiteware
Function
Firearms and Ammunition
Brick
Pipe Unmarked 4
Pipe Unmarked 5
Light/heat/cooking Item
Bottle Marked
Bottle Press Molded
Curved Glass
Modern Bottle
Window Glass
Mammal Historic
Machine Cut Nail
Unidentified
Unidentified Nail
Wire Nail
Other Historic
Structural Hardware
Ceramic Sherds
Ceramic Sherds
Ceramic Sherds
Ceramic Sherds
Plate/platter/saucer
Teacup/mug
*Total- Area 1
Area 2
Glass
*Total- Area 2
Total
Count
2
13
2
2
5
2
7
19
6
1
11
4
12
2
1
1
1
4
2
2
10
1
1
111
Curved Glass
Marble
1
1
2
113
PAL Report No. 488 95
Chapter Six
Table 6-10. Post-contact period cultural materials recovered during data recovery archaeological
investigations of the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace.
Material
Brick
Ceramic
Coal
Copper Alloy
Earthenware
Glass
Glass Molded
Historic Bone
Iron
Pearlware
Pearlware Handpainted
Pearlware Transfer-print
Porc/handpaint/underglaze
Red Bodied Coarse
Red Coarse Unglazed
Tin
Whiteware
Function
Construction Item
Pipe Marked
Pipe Unmarked
Light/heat/cooking Item
Bullet
Ceramic Sherds
Curved Glass
Window Glass
Bottle Machine Lip
Mammal Historic
Hardware
Machine Cut Nail
Unidentified
Ceramic Sherds
Ceramic Sherds
Ceramic Sherds
Plate/platter/saucer
Ceramic Sherds
Ceramic Sherds
Button
Ceramic Sherds
Total
Count
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
11
1
13
1
1
10
12
12
13
4
1
5
1
1
96
Table 6-11. Data recovery and site examination radiocarbon dates from the Area 1 Site, Hanover
Marketplace.
Phase
Unit or
Feature
Depth
(in
cmbs)
Radiocarbon results
Calibrated date
range*
Sample No.
Data recovery
Feature 1
70-105
7740 ± 150 B.P.
(Beta-60199)
Feature 13
110-115
4600 ± 90 B.P.
9000 – 8300 B.P.
(7050 – 6350 BC)
5600 – 4950 B.P.
(3650 – 3000 BC)
Feature 8
Feature 8
45-50
50-65
sample too small/no date
3510 ± 90 B.P.
4100 – 3550 B.P.
(2150 – 1600 BC)
Site examination
Feature 2
30-40
3290 ± 80 B.P.
3710 – 3360 B.P.
(1760 – 1410 BC)
Test pit
30-40
3540 ± 80 B.P.
4010 – 3630 B.P.
N40W5
(2060 – 1680 BC)
Feature 1
10-20
100.5 ± 0.9% B.P.
Modern
* Radiocarbon calibration at the 95.4% confidence interval accomplished using the OxCal
Radiocarbon Calibration Program
96
PAL Report No. 488
(Beta 63082)
(Beta-67934)
(Beta-55004)
(Beta-55006)
(Beta-55005)
(version 3.10)
CHAPTER SEVEN
RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES
Petrographic and Geochemical Analysis
Petrographic analysis was conducted on several lithic samples from the Area 1 Site to provide
quantifiable information on likely source areas of several varieties of felsites used in chipped stone tool
manufacture by the pre-contact Native American occupants of the site. Representative samples of lithic
materials macroscopically identified as “Hingham red felsite” and “Sally Rock felsite” were submitted to
the University of Rhode Island’s Geology Department for thin sectioning and to be subjected to X-ray
Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF) analysis. X-ray fluorescence stimulates emission of X-rays by
irradiating a sample with energies. Electrons orbiting the nuclei of a sample’s atoms can be ejected from
their orbits if they absorb sufficiently strong X-ray photons during energy bombardment. During this
process, higher energy level orbiting electrons drop to fill lower level electron orbits vacated by the
electrons ejected from the atom during irradiation. X-ray photons are emitted from the atoms at this time.
The energy of any emitted X-ray photons is equal to the difference in energy levels between the two
orbits of the transitioning electrons, and the wavelength of these photons. These photons are unique for
each individual element and can be measured with special detection devices. Consequently, one can
determine the elemental constituents of a sample by determining the wavelength of the emitted X-ray
photons. Furthermore, the number of X-rays emitted from a sample per a given unit of time correlates
with the concentration of that element in any given sample providing a picture of concentration of specific
elements or compounds within a sample under study.
It was anticipated that examination of thin-sections and geochemical analysis using XRF would be the
start of an accumulating database on southern New England Native American lithic source area
geochemistry. So-called temporally or culturally diagnostic artifacts and selected debitage samples from
the Area 1 Site were submitted to XRF analysis using the non-destructive method described by Hermes
and Ritchie (1997b) (Table 7-1). The results of the XRF analysis are presented in Table 7-2. The full
range and concentrations of trace elements sampled for the Lynn Volcanic and Blue Hills volcanic
complexes reported elsewhere in the archaeological literature (see for example Hermes and Murray 1990)
are also presented in Table 7-2 for comparative purposes. Non-destructive XRF offers the potential to
provide a rapid, geochemical characterization of lithic materials and source areas without destroying
archaeological materials. Following XRF, debitage samples were sectioned for petrographic examination
(Table 7-3).
Area 1 Site artifacts subjected to geochemical and petrographic analysis included lithic materials
cataloged as Hingham red felsite (Sample Nos. 488-L1, 488-L6, and 488-L7), Sally Rock felsite (Sample
Nos. 488-L8, 488-L9), Blue Hills rhyolite (Sample Nos. 488-L4, 488-L10, 488-L11, 19-PL-749) and
Lynn volcanic felsite. Geochemical characterization of southern New England lithic source areas and
materials is only in its infancy and the full range of source area variability is presently unknown. Thus,
using trace elements to determine the parent source for a number of the recovered Hanover Marketplace
artifacts is not currently possible. Nonetheless, supplemental archaeological studies that characterize the
mineralogy, geochemistry, and molecular compounds of lithic sources areas and archaeological materials
and the continued compilation of a lithic source database should provide additional and new insight into
pre-contact Native American population movements and/or trade and exchange networks operating in
southern New England throughout the past (Hermes and Ritchie 1997a, 1997b).
PAL Report No. 488
97
Chapter Seven
Table 7-1. Lithic Samples and Artifacts Examined by Petrographic and Geochemical Analysis.
Sample
No.
488-L1
488-L2
488-L3
488-L4
488-L5
Description
Phase
Debitage
Projectile point;
Bifurcate-base
Site Exam
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Data
Recovery
Debitage
Projectile point;
Bifurcate-base
Projectile Point:
Orient Fishtail
488-L6
Biface
488-L7
Debitage
488-L8
Biface
488-L9
Debitage
488-L10
Debitage
488-L11
Debitage
488-L12
Debitage
19-PL749
Projectile point:
Neville
Analysis
Thin
Trace
Section Element
X
X
Provenience
(in cmbs)
Material
Description
EU04: 20-30
Felsite
Red
EU08-NE: 40-45
Felsite
Dark gray
EU08-SW: 40-45
Felsite
Dark gray
EU16-S: 35-40
Rhyolite
Blue-gray
X
EU18-E: 15-20
Felsite
Blue-graytan
X
EU10-SW: 65-70
Felsite
Red
X
EU14-NE: 30-35
Feature 9
Felsite
Red
EU09-NE: 25-30
Felsite
Tan
EU09-SW: 5-10
Felsite
Tan
X
X
EU09-NE: 25-30
Rhyolite
Blue-gray
X
X
EU06-SE: 25-30
Rhyolite
Blue-graytan
X
X
EU14-SE: 40-45
Felsite
Pink/red
X
X
EU07-SE: 25-30
Rhyolite
Blue-gray
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Petrographic thin sections prepared from debitage samples indicated that the felsites used by pre-contact
Native American occupants of the Area 1 Site may have originated from one or more of the
Lynn/Mattapan source areas. Petrographic features of a number of the so-called Blue Hills rhyolite
samples recovered from the site (e.g. the presence of epidote, plagioclase, clasts, and flow banding) are
similar to those known from the Lynn/Mattapan volcanic complex. Trace elements however, in particular
the concentrations of strontium (Sr), yttrium (Y), and zirconium (Zr) are consistent with reported
concentrations from the Blue Hills complex. Sectioned “Sally Rock felsite” specimens appear to be
examples of non-volcanic rock, most likely a clastic siltstone. Detailed technical descriptions of the
Hanover Marketplace petrographic thin sections are included in Appendix G.
Depositional History
Area 1 Site soils were fairly uniform consisting of a plowed A Horizon underlain by B and C Horizon
subsoils (see Chapter 6). Disturbance to the site is generally limited to agricultural plowing. Repeated
plowing has likely displaced artifacts both horizontally and vertically from their places of original discard
within the site. Consequently, data pertaining to the vertical separation of the various discrete, temporal
occupations that comprise the Area 1 Site is limited due to the presence of relatively undisturbed, natural
soils and the absence of well stratified occupational surfaces at the site. Nevertheless, mean depths for
temporally diagnostic projectile points recovered from the site suggests that some vertical separation
between the various archaeological components that comprise the Area 1 Site still existed at the site
(Table 7-4). A discussion of the occupational history of the Area 1 Site drawn from a study of temporally
diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon assays follows.
98
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Studies
Table 7-2. Trace Element Data for Artifact and Debitage Samples.
Sample
Number
Trace Element Concentrations (parts per million)
Rb
Sr
488-L1
114
131
488-L2
52
300
488-L3
66
346
488-L4
196
13
488-L5
57
221
488-L6
81
201
488-L7
105
133
488-L8
104
20
488-L9
116
23
488-L10
172
52
488-L11
181
23
488-L12
40
247
19-PL-749
189
15
Blue Hills source area
19010range*
200
45
Lynn Volcanic source area
52140range*
142
433
* data from Hermes and Murray (1990).
Y
Zr
Nb
Ba
La
Ce
Zn
52
33
35
111
32
34
44
82
108
23
122
20
90
70130
1936
309
364
361
1097
190
289
281
586
498
106
1053
137
1149
8201690
218341
28
18
17
86
15
19
23
46
44
13
88
9
94
100140
1127
286
1130
1389
39
1168
314
348
252
275
173
43
989
54
50170
7921358
67
43
33
90
44
45
33
36
81
40
48
30
113
65170
2469
108
96
84
99
84
88
83
63
153
60
58
57
194
190250
59132
96
98
106
204
65
65
48
33
24
51
113
20
44
95230
2941
Early Archaic Occupation
The earliest evidence for pre-contact Native American occupation of the Area 1 Site dates to the Early
Archaic Period. Early Archaic Period occupation at the site is indicated by the recovery of three bifurcatebase projectile points (see Figure 6-16). Bifurcate-base projectile points were recovered from between 15
and 45 cmbs at an average depth of 37.5 cmbs (see Table 7-4 and Appendix C). Two pieces of a tan
felsite bifurcate were recovered from Feature 6 fill, while a crossmending basal fragment was recovered
from immediately west of the feature. A dark gray/black felsite bifurcate was recovered from immediately
northwest of Feature 8. Charcoal from Feature 8 produced a radiocarbon age of 3510 ± 90 B.P. (Beta
67934). A third bifurcate was recovered from EU 16, located less than five meters southeast of the two
previously recovered bifurcate-based projectile points. These data appear to suggest a tightly clustered
Early Archaic occupation concentrated within the central portion of the Northeast Quadrant Concentration
area.
While there have been a number of bifurcate-base projectile points recovered from systematic
archaeological investigations in Massachusetts, they are not abundant and they have not been adequately
radiocarbon dated. Early Archaic radiocarbon dates of 8555±200 and 8260±40 B.P. have however, been
returned from the Double P Site in Bridgewater (Simon 1982) and the Federal Pond Site in Plymouth
(Waller 2012), both of which produced bifurcate-base projectile points. Johnson (1984) observed that all
sites in Massachusetts, which had yielded Early Archaic artifacts also contained later Archaic materials.
This association is suggestive of “a basic continuity of settlement pattern through the Archaic period”
(Barber 1979:207).
PAL Report No. 488 99
Chapter Seven
Table 7-3. Results of Petrographic Thin Section Analysis.
Sample
No.
488-L1
488-L3
Rock Type/Petrographic Features
Probable Source Area
Pyroclastic tuff, calcalkaline volcanic rock, quartz and
feldspar phenocrysts
Flow structure is diagnostic indicating rock is a banded
rhyolite, calcalkaline volcanic, plagioclase phenocrysts
Petrography and geochemistry consistently
indicate volcanic rock; e.g., Lynn/Mattapan
Petrography and geochemistry consistently
indicate volcanic rock; e.g., Lynn/Mattapan
Presence of epidote, clastic nature and highfield strength trace elements suggest an
affinity with calcalkaline volcanics, e.g.,
Lynn/Mattapan
Rock non-volcanic, completely clastic; most
likely a siltstone
Geochemistry is non-diagnostic. Presence of
epidote, plagioclase, clasts, and flow banding
suggest a link to Lynn/Mattapan
Geochemistry and petrography, plus the
presence of aegerine, consistently indicate an
alkalic affinity Blue Hills
Lynn/Mattapan; Shard texture may be more
prominent in the Lynn source rocks northeast
of Boston
488-L7
No plagioclase, sparse phenocrysts, unknown elongate
fine-grained needle-like mineral in matrix, epidote
488-L9
No phenocrysts, fine-grained quartz-rich rock with
iron-staining, feldspar clasts
488-L10
Microphenocrysts of quartz and feldspar, matrix is
banded with flow around phenocrysts, epidote
488-L11
488-L12
Quartz and feldspar microphenocrysts, matrix consists
of fine-grained intergrowth of quartz, feldspar,
aegerine
Volcanic
tuff
with
abundant
feldspar
microphenocrysts, matrix consists of devitrified quartzfeldspar intergrowth, relict glass shard texture
Table 7-4. Vertical Distribution of Diagnostic Projectile Points.
Projectile Point Type
Count
Average Depth (in cmbs)
Bifurcate-base
Neville/Stark
Brewerton
Small Stemmed
Atlantic
Susquehanna Broad
Orient Fishtail
3
9
4
51
8
6
5
37.5
34.1
31.2
24.2
23.7
20.0
18.5
Middle Archaic Occupation
Middle Archaic Period occupation of the Area 1 Site is represented by a substantial lithic artifact
assemblage, subsistence-related features, and a lithic workshop. Middle Archaic Period cultural materials
that included temporally diagnostic Neville and Stark projectile points were recovered at an average depth
of 34.1 cmbs from two distinct areas within the Area 1 Site: contiguous EUs 1, 2 and 5 located within the
S5W10 Concentration area and EUs 7, 9, 10 and 23 excavated within the southeastern portion of the
Northeast Quadrant Concentration area.
Charcoal recovered in association with Middle Archaic artifacts from pit Feature 1 located within the
S5W10 Concentration area produced a radiocarbon age of 7740±150 B.P. (Beta 60199). Feature 1, along
with associated Features 3 and 4, contained high densities of arkose and Braintree slate chipping debris,
much of which showed evidence of being exposed to heat. The high density of these materials in the
feature fills appears to represent a discrete lithic work station that dated to the Middle Archaic Period.
Cultural materials recovered from the workshop area included an atlatl weight of Braintree Slate that was
apparently broken during manufacture and a large arkose biface that likely served as a scraper. A gray
100
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Studies
felsite Neville drill/perforator was recovered from EU 2 in association with Feature 1, while a Neville
projectile point base and a discoidal cobble tool (see Figure 6-9a) were recovered nearby.
One Stark and five Neville projectile points were recovered from within the southeastern portion of the
Northeast Quadrant Concentration area between 25 and 55 cmbs. The Stark point was recovered from the
bottom of fire-cracked rock concentration Feature 12. Charcoal collected from Feature 12 produced a
radiocarbon age of 3540±80 B.P. (Beta-55006). This feature is apparently associated with the known
Small Stemmed Tradition occupation of the Area 1 Site Northeast Quadrant Concentration area. Neville
points were recovered from contiguous EUs 7, 9, and 10 and from EU 7. A significant amount of
chipping debris recovered in association with the Neville points was represented by a wide variety of
felsites. The debitage to artifact ratio within this Middle Archaic activity area was extremely high
indicating that tool manufacture and maintenance was conducted at this locale. The greater frequency of
small flakes at the expense of large primary flakes and shatter indicates that secondary and tertiary stages
of chipped stone stool manufacture had been conducted here with larger felsite blocks, cores, blanks, or
other objective pieces being brought to the site for further finishing into formal or useful tool types.
In all, the archaeological data from the Area 1 Site indicate that the Middle Archaic occupation of the site
was comprised of small, overlapping (re-occupied) camps located on the southern slope of the knoll along
Iron Mine Brook and its associated wetlands.
Late Archaic Occupation
The Area 1 Site appears to have been most intensely occupied during the Late Archaic Period. Late
Archaic occupations at the site included both Laurentian Tradition and Small Stemmed Tradition
components. Laurentian Tradition Brewerton-type projectile points were collected from EU 10 excavated
within the Northeast Quadrant Concentration area, while a fourth was recovered from EU 11 to the north.
Stratigraphically, Brewerton points appear to overlay Middle Archaic Neville and Stark points and
underlay Small Stemmed Tradition projectiles at the site affirming the chronological placement of
Brewerton points between the Middle Archaic and Small Stemmed Point Tradition of the Late Archaic
Period (see Table 7-4).
The greatest Late Archaic component to the Area 1 Site is associated with Small Stemmed Tradition.
Forty-six Small Stemmed and five Squibnocket Triangle projectile points were recovered from the Area 1
Site during both site examination and data recovery archaeological investigations. The vast majority of
these projectile points (45 of 51 or 88 percent) were manufactured out of quartz. Additionally, a
significant portion of the Small Stemmed Tradition point assemblage was associated with quartz
workshop Feature 9 situated within the central portion of the Northeast Quadrant Concentration area,
although all of the EUs excavated in the Northeast Quadrant Concentration area (save for EU 6) produced
Small Stemmed lithic materials. These data lend support to Dr. Kevin A. McBride’s (1984) assertion that
the Small Stemmed Tradition was reliant upon an efficient quartz cobble tool technology. In addition to
projectile points, Native American cultural materials associated with the Late Archaic Small Stemmed
Tradition to the Area 1 Site included bifaces and bifacial tool fragments, unifacial tools, core remnants, a
slate whetstone, pestle, chopper, and a slate atlatl weight.
As mentioned above, charcoal from Feature 12 produced a Late Archaic radiocarbon age of 3540±80 B.P.
Other Late Archaic radiocarbon dates from the site included a 3290±80 B.P. from charcoal recovered
from hearth/burnt rock platform Feature 2, 3510±90 B.P. date from Feature 8, and a 4600±90 B.P. date
from charcoal recovered between 110 and 115 cmbs within Feature 13. Feature 13 underlay Feature 2 and
produced several Small Stemmed Tradition projectile points from the same level that yielded the dated
charcoal. Although it was not dated, fire-cracked rock concentration Feature 10 produced Small Stemmed
PAL Report No. 488 101
Chapter Seven
materials and therefore appears to be associated with the Late Archaic Small Stemmed occupation of the
Area 1 Site.
Site examination and data recovery archaeological investigations of the Hanover Marketplace suggest that
the Area 1 Site was comprised of a series of small to moderate-sized camps created during the Late
Archaic Period. The presence of a numerous Small Stemmed projectile points indicates that hunting was
important to those who occupied the site during this period. Deep pit Feature 13 appears to have served as
a refuse/disposal pit. The recovery of a slate atlatl weight in contextual association with narrow stemmed
and triangular projectile points suggests that these implements served as spear points as opposed to arrow
points. The quartz biface assemblage along with the full range of quartz debitage (primary, secondary,
and tertiary flakes, lithic shatter, and quartz cores) indicates that the full range of chipped stone tool
manufactured from initial raw material selection through rough bifacial tool preparation to final-stage tool
finishing occurred on site. The presence of lithic tools that included scrapers and drill/perforators indicate
the Small Stemmed Tradition occupants of the site also engaged in other activities that included hideworking.
Fire-cracked rock concentrations and pit features identified and excavated at the site suggest that food
processing/consumption, storage, disposal were also practiced at the Area 1 Site during the Late Archaic
Period. The recovery of calcined mammal bone from both Feature 13 fill contexts and in non-feature soil
contexts at the site lends further support to the notion that hunting and the subsequent
processing/consumption of acquired game was conducted at the site. Burnt rock platform/hearth Feature 2
and fire-cracked rock concentrations Features 10 and 12 were likely used to dry, cook, or otherwise
process food resources that may have included small game, birds, and/or fish. Although no evidence for
fish was recovered from the site, the net sinker/stone weight from during site examination EU 2 indicates
riverine resources were indeed exploited during the Late Archaic Period. The recovery of a fragment of a
possible charred hickory nut from Feature 2 may indicate this burnt rock platform/hearth was used to
process botanical foods. The presence of food-grinding implements that includes a pestle and coarse
chopper adds credence to the supposition that hard nuts were exploited by the occupants of the site during
the Late Archaic. Pollen sampled from nearby Black Pond suggests that hickory had become an integral
component of the local oak-white pine forest by 3500 B.P. (Sneddon 1987).
Transitional Archaic Occupation
The Transitional Archaic Period overlapped temporally and possibly culturally with the end of the Late
Archaic Period and the beginning of the Early Woodland Period (see Chapter 4). A Transitional Archaic
component at the Area 1 Site was identified within the Northeast Quadrant Concentration area where
eight Atlantic, six Susquehanna Broad, three Wayland Notched, and five Orient Fishtail projectile points
were recovered. These materials are associated with each of the known phases of Transitional Archaic
occupation in Massachusetts dating between 3600 and ca. 2600 radiocarbon B.P. EU 8 alone produced six
Atlantic, two Susquehanna Broad, one Wayland Notched, and one Orient Fishtail. Three Susquehanna
Broad points and one Atlantic point were recovered from contiguous EUs excavated to the north and
south, while an Atlantic point was recovered from fire-cracked rock concentration Feature 12 situated
within the southern portion of the Northeast Quadrant Concentration area. Atlantic points at the Area 1
Site were recovered from an average depth of 23.7 cmbs, Susquehanna Broad points from an average
depth of 20.0 cmbs, and Orient Fishtail points from an average depth of 18.5 cmbs (see Table 7-4)
conforming to the known succession of Transitional Archaic Period archaeological phases in southern
New England and Massachusetts.
The Late and Transitional Archaic occupations at the Area 1 Site both appear as dense concentrations of
cultural materials and features of near contemporaneous age.
102
PAL Report No. 488
Results of the Archaeological Studies
Middle Woodland Occupation
The most recent and yet smallest identified occupation at the Area 1 Site dated to the Middle Woodland
Period. A Middle Woodland component to the site was identified by the recovery of a jasper Jack’s Reef
Corner Notched projectile point from shallow pit Feature 7 located in EU 12. Feature 7 intruded into Late
Archaic Small Stemmed Tradition quartz workshop Feature 9. A jasper projectile point tip fragment was
also recovered from Feature 7. Pennsylvania jasper flakes from the north half of EU 12 and the two precontact Native American clay pottery sherds recovered from the site are likely associated with the Middle
Woodland occupation of the Area 1 Site.
Shallow fire pit Feature 7, the jasper Jack’s Reef projectile point and associated jasper debitage, and the
two clay pot sherds suggest the Area 1 Site was occupied only briefly during the Middle Woodland
Period. Activities implied by the site’s artifact and feature content include limited food processing and
hunting.
PAL Report No. 488 103
CHAPTER EIGHT
SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Combined site examination and data recovery archaeological investigations demonstrated that the Area 1
Site occupied a knoll bordering Columbia Road. The Area 1 Site was first occupied during the Early
Archaic Period with a more sizable occupation dating to the Middle Archaic Period. The most intense and
diverse occupation and use of the site occurred during the Late Archaic Period primarily by producers of
Small Stemmed Tradition projectile points and artifacts. Susquehanna Tradition projectile points such as
Atlantic, Wayland Notched, Susquehanna Broad, and Orient Fishtail varieties demonstrate that the Area 1
Site was also occupied during the Transitional Archaic Period, although to a lesser degree. A small, shortduration Middle Woodland component was also present at the site.
Pre-contact Native American archaeological deposits were most dense in northeast corner of the Area 1
Site (Northeast Quadrant Concentration area), with lesser concentrations located to the northwest and
within the site’s southern half (S5W10 Concentration area). Identified concentration areas consisted of
moderate to high densities of lithic debitage with associated chipped and ground/pecked stone tools, few
Native American clay pot sherds, and several associated archaeological features. Two of excavated
features contained charcoal that yielded Late/Transitional Archaic Period radiocarbon dates (see Chapter
7).
Evaluation of Archaeological Data
The categories of data collected from the Area 1 Site as a result of site examination and data recovery
program archaeological investigations provided new categories of data relevant for advancing our
understanding of pre-contact Native American settlement and land use in southeastern Massachusetts.
Stated Goals/Data Collection
Each of the research questions generated for the Hanover Marketplace archaeological data recovery
program was addressed by a set of stated goals/data collection objectives. Certain assumptions were made
regarding the categories of archaeological data expected to be present at the Area 1 Site following the
findings of the site examination survey. Expected classes of archaeological data and those actually
obtained from the site as a result of data recovery archaeological investigations were for the most part
commensurate. Some discrepancies between the anticipated and actual data sets were, however,
encountered. These differences led to limited modifications in the research goals. Area 1 Site
archaeological data sets are described below in these terms.
Lithic Assemblage
The Area 1 Site lithic assemblage, which consisted of chipped and ground/pecked stone tools and lithic
debitage, exceeded the expected categories of archaeological information necessary to address the
occupational and depositional history of the site, examining the differential use of space within the site,
and assessing the social organization of on-site activities. Diagnostic projectile points and other tools
were recovered, several from radiocarbon-dated cultural contexts. Chipped-stone tools also provided
information about lithic technologies within the North River drainage relative to lithic patterns observed
at other sub-regional or regional sites.
104 PAL Report No. 488
Summary and Assessment of the Research Questions
The density, variability, morphological attributes, and distribution of the chipping debris provided ample
information useful for reconstructing site use and the spatial patterning of activities. These data were also
useful for answering questions about lithic technologies and raw material distributions within the North
River drainage. Selective petrographic analyses and thin sectioning provided information of probable
lithic source areas targeted by the Area 1 Site occupants.
Features
Cultural features (N=14) at the Area 1 Site provided information useful for addressing questions about
on-site activities, intensity of occupation, and the role of the activity areas within the site and within
larger subregional land use systems. Radiocarbon dates derived from organic materials obtained from
undisturbed soil contexts within three of these features, together with the two radiocarbon dates derived
from archaeological features during the preceding archaeological site examination survey, provided a
well-dated chronology of site occupation and land use. Feature depths and their temporal and/or cultural
affiliations provided the basis for interpreting the site’s depositional history. Feature morphological
attributes and contexts also provided insight into the full range of on-site domestic activities and clues as
to social organization across the site over time. Floral and faunal remains obtained from archaeological
features assisted with answering questions of resource exploitation and the seasonality(ies) of site
occupation.
Palynological Data
Several of the data recovery program archaeological research themes required reconstruction of the Area
1 Site/North River drainage paleoenvironment. Sneddon’s (1987) reconstruction the late glacial and postglacial vegetation of Black Pond in nearby Norwell was particularly useful for interpreting the
paleoenvironment of the Area 1 Site. Topographic maps with information on the surficial deposits and
soil types were also reviewed in order to assist with reconstructing the past environmental conditions.
Floral/Faunal Data
It was expected that archaeological features at the site would provide floral and faunal remains, which
when combined with local and regional palynological information, would aid in interpreting resource use,
site seasonality, and the settlement history of the site. While few identifiable seed and nuts were
recovered from pre-contact Native American archaeological contexts at the site during data recovery
investigations, the fragmentary nature of the recovered calcined bone specimens was too small for the
most part to permit species identification. Soil flotation resulted in the recovery of shell from six samples.
Recovered shell, however, was highly fragmented and species identification of them is questionable. The
generally acidic conditions of site area soils is likely partially responsible for the poor representation of
organic remains (floral, faunal, aquatic, riverine, etc.) at the site. The general absence of floral and faunal
remains from the site precludes definitive interpretations about targeted resources and site seasonality.
Petrographic and Geochemical Data
Trace element analysis and petrographic thin sectioning verified for the most part lithic source areas
determination based on a macroscopic (visual) inspection of the Area 1 Site lithic materials. Petrographic
and geochemical analyses demonstrated that lithic sourcing is best accomplished by combining
macroscopic criteria, trace element analyses, and the examination of thin sections. Lithic materials, such
as some of those derived from the Lynn/Mattapan volcanic complex, exhibit a broad spectrum and range
of trace elements. While it may be possible to associate some of these lithic materials to a broad
geographic complex, it is often difficult to correlate them with very specific quarry sites. Pink/red felsite
Sample # 488-L12 for example is geochemically similar to other lithics derived from the Lynn/Mattapan
PAL Report No. 488 105
Chapter Eight
volcanic suite. Morphological and observable thin section characteristics of this sample that include
elongated accessory minerals within a crenallated pattern are consistent with other red felsite samples
(Sample # 488-L1, 488-L6, 488-L7) that are known to outcrop in Hingham. Nevertheless, PAL interprets
Sample # 488-L12 as most likely as having been derived from the Lynn/Mattapan volcanic complex of
northeastern Massachusetts. Trace element analysis of the red felsite shows possible geochemical
“markers” that includes elevated amounts of some elements such as zinc and lesser ancillary elements
such as barium.
Assessment of Research Questions
Research Question 1: What was the extent and nature of Late Archaic Period use of the Area
1 Site? Does the data conform to the general regional model?
The database of known pre-contact Native American archaeological sites from eastern/southeastern
Massachusetts and Rhode Island indicates that sites vary in size and structural characteristics. These
variations are probably reflections of certain factors or processes that include site function, duration of
occupation, the size of the group(s) occupying a site, and the frequency of site re-occupation. Many
southern New England archaeological sites situated in resource rich areas such as river or swamp margins
commonly contain evidence for repeated occupation over thousands of years. Archaeological sites
recurrently occupied over thousands of years oftentimes provide evidence for and changes in pre-contact
Native American settlement systems at the local level.
The fourth millennium B.P. in southern New England is recognized as a time of environmental
stabilization, which may have led hunter/gatherer populations to develop settlement and subsistence
strategies confined to circumscribed territories. Lithic material distributions appear to suggest a gradual
decrease in group territory size from the preceding periods (ca. 8000 to 6000 B.P.) and increased resource
specialization within an environment that supported variable and diverse natural resources (Dincauze
1980). A reduction in group size operational territories around 4000 to 3000 years ago may have
contributed to increased re-use and occupation of optimal environmental settings and resource areas such
as large riverine settings, upland zone wetlands, etc. Another factor could be changes in the logistical
organization of task-oriented groups possibly in tandem with a reduction in territory size (Thorbahn
1982). Regardless of the motivational cause or causes, the result appears to have been that optimal site
locations (those having the greatest resource abundances and diversities) were targeted for repeated,
periodic settlement during the Late Archaic Period. Archaeological investigations at several
multicomponent riverine and upland wetland zone sites located in the Taunton River drainage of
southeastern Massachusetts appear to support this hypothesis. The most intensive occupation of the Bay
Street 1 Site occurred between 4300 and 3200 years ago for example. The nearby Canoe River West Site
contained several large burnt rock pavements that appear to have been constructed and used for purposes
of resource processing between ca. 3200 and 2500 years ago. The variety of Native American features
(e.g. large complex pits and hearths) at the Newcombe Street Site similarly dated to between 4000 and
3300 years ago is suggestive of several episodes of re-occupation dating to the Late Archaic Period
(Thorbahn et al. 1982). Moderate to large (2500 to 5000 m²) multicomponent Archaic/Woodland Period
sites located along the margins of wetlands/marshes in several other major river drainages in eastern
Massachusetts also appear to have been intensively (re)occupied around 4500 to 3000 years ago. Features
on two large riverine zone sites in the Neponset and Cochato river drainages, for example, were primarily
associated with Late/Transitional Archaic occupations. Radiocarbon dates derived from large, deep pits
with associated stone tool lithic manufacturing debris (e.g. chipping debris and bifacial tool blades) and
hearth features at the Oak Terrace Site along the Neponset River clustered between 3990 and 3430 B.P.
Archaeological features at the Gill Farm #3 Site situated along the Cochato River produced similar dates
that ranged from 3940 to 3230 years ago. Pre-existing Middle Archaic occupations at each of these sites
appear to have been impacted by the construction of later Late/Transitional Archaic cultural features.
106
PAL Report No. 488
Summary and Assessment of the Research Questions
Combined site examination and data recovery investigations at the Area 1 Site identified a substantial
Small Stemmed and Squibnocket Stemmed/Triangle lithic assemblage and four archaeological features
radiocarbon dated to 4600 ± 90 B.P., 3540 ± 80 B.P., 3510 ± 90 B.P., and 3290 ± 80 B.P. The site’s
artifact content and feature record are suggestive of recurrent occupation of this location during the
Late/Transitional Archaic Period. Dense lithic chipping debris, projectile points, bifacial and unifacial
tools and core remnants associated with quartz workshop Feature 9 are demonstrative of an episode of
intensive chipped stone tool manufacture located at the crest of the knoll. Concentrations of Laurentian
Tradition Brewerton and Susquehanna Tradition projectile points and evidence for terrestrial and aquatic
resource provisioning and processing from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration area provide further
evidence of recurrent occupation of the site dating the Late/Transitional Archaic Period. Late/Transitional
Archaic occupants of the site engaged in resource processing, refuse disposal, and lithic
manufacture/maintenance. Hunting and processing of small game as evidence by the recovery of calcined
mammal bones appear to have been important Late/Transitional Archaic subsistence activities. Foodgrinding implements recovered from the site (e.g. pestle and a coarse chopper) suggest that vegetal foods
such as acorns or other nuts, wetland tubers, and/or other wetland flora were also exploited at this locale.
Stone tools such as scrapers, knives, unifacial stone tools, and drills/perforators suggest that hideworking, butchering, and meat processing were also conducted at the Area 1 Site. A stone weight/net
sinker indicates that riverine resources were also targeted by the site’s inhabitants.
As previously mentioned, the Area 1 Site was located along the southwestern side of a broad knoll that
may once have been bordered by feeder streams/wetlands associated with Third Herring Brook on the
east, by Iron Mine Brook and associated wetlands on the west, and on the northeast and northwest by
wetlands that form the headwaters of these streams. The site is also situated less than one mile north of
the confluence of the Indian Head and North rivers where three principal tributary streams (Third Herring
Brook, Swamp Brook, Pudding Brook) converge in a large wetland. This upland wetland situated in
proximity to the Indian Head and North rivers appears to have been one such “optimal site location” that
was targeted for resource exploitation and/or settlement during the Late/Transitional Archaic periods.
Research Question 2: What information does the Area 1 Site contain on the transition
between the Archaic and Woodland Period?
The recovery of two Native American clay pot sherds from two different locations within the Area 1 Site
Northeastern Quadrant Concentration area during the archaeological site examination survey posed
important questions to the PAL research team: does the site contain evidence for early (Late/Transitional
Archaic Period) ceramic production and use or are these artifacts evidence for continuous or repeated
occupation of the site that extended into the Early and Middle Woodland Periods? The earliest evidence
for Native American ceramic production in the Northeast is generally attributed to the Early Woodland
Period (ca 3000 B.P.). Some sites in the Taunton River drainage, however have produced evidence for
early ceramic vessel use in southern New England. Ceramic sherds similar in type and style to known
Early Woodland Vinette I ceramics were recovered in close association to a pit feature radiocarbon dated
to ca. 3700 B.P. at the Bay Street I Site (Cox 1982). It was believed that continued archaeological
investigation of the Area 1 Site would resolve whether the ceramics recovered from the site were early
examples or evidence of later Woodland Period occupation.
Data recovery investigations at the Area 1 Site confirmed that the site contained a substantial Late
Archaic Small Stemmed Tradition archaeological component. Hand excavation also documented that the
site contained Late Archaic Laurentian Tradition and Transitional Archaic Susquehanna Tradition
archaeological components. Previously unknown Early Archaic and Middle Archaic Period occupations
were also identified at the site as a result of archaeological data recovery field investigations. Woodland
Period artifacts recovered from the excavated portion of the Area 1 Site was limited to a single
Pennsylvania jasper Jack’s Reef corner notched projectile point (see Figure 6-26). This projectile point
PAL Report No. 488 107
Chapter Eight
was recovered from in association with Feature 7. Feature 7 is interpreted as a Middle Woodland fire pit,
which intruded into the northwestern border of Late Archaic lithic workshop Feature 9. No additional
Woodland Period artifacts or ceramic sherds were recovered from the Area 1 Site during data recovery
archaeological investigations. The documentation of an ephemeral Middle Woodland component suggests
that the site was only occasionally occupied for very brief periods of time during the Woodland Period as
compared to the Late Archaic Period. Evidently then, this small interior stream and wetland setting
associated with Third Herring Brook did not markedly factor into the long-term settlement system of the
local and/or regional Native American population(s) during the Woodland Period.
Research Question 3: What is the nature and extent of wetland resource exploitation at the
Area 1 Site, and how does this reflect changes in the environment around 4000 to 3000 years
ago?
Archaeological research has demonstrated that Native American sites are commonly located in productive
ecosystems, which supported a diversity of natural resources. Wetlands are very productive ecosystems,
which served as important foci for human settlement and resource exploitation throughout the pre-contact
period and into the historic period. Nicholas (1991) has identified five ecological features that attracted
pre-contact Native American hunter/gatherers to wetlands: resource type (flora, fauna), seasonality,
resource productivity, species diversity, and resource reliability.
Archaeological investigations within the greater Taunton River drainage have demonstrated that wetland
margins were targeted for resource exploitation and settlement during the Late Archaic, particularly by
those associated with the Small Stemmed Tradition. Resource availability and diversity likely contributed
to the selection of the Area 1 Site as a camping locale during the Late Archaic. Fishing of anadromous
fish derived from Iron Mine Brook and its tributaries may have contributed to intensive occupation of the
site area. The burnt rock platform/hearth (site examination Feature 2) that overlay a deep pit (Feature 13)
is an area where fish, meat and/or plant resources were likely processed. It is not possible to determine
with any certainty which resources were exploited at this locale due to the absence of floral and faunal
remains. Flotation of site examination Feature 2 soils produced one charred Chenopodium seed.
Radiocarbon dates of 3290 ± 90 B.P. from site examination burnt rock platform Feature 2 and 4600 ± 90
B.P. from pit Feature 13, in addition to Small Stemmed and Orient Fishtail projectile point varieties
suggest that these features may have been re-used throughout the Late/Transitional Archaic Period.
Recovery of a single Native American ceramic sherd from within the burnt rock platform is suggestive of
limited Woodland Period utilization/occupation of this particular area within the Area 1 Site. Three firecracked/burnt rock concentrations with associated Small Stemmed, Atlantic, and Orient Fishtail projectile
points were exposed within the Northeast Quadrant Concentration area. Few Early Archaic, Middle
Archaic, and Late Archaic Laurentian Tradition projectile points recovered away from the firecracked/burnt rock concentration areas are indicative of sporadic, short-duration occupation of the Area 1
Site during these periods relative to the Small Stemmed/Susquehanna Tradition occupations of the site.
Other sites in the Taunton River drainage contained evidence for similar resource processing dating to the
Late/Transitional Archaic Period. The Canoe River West Site, for example, contained at least 26 burnt
rock platforms situated in close proximity to one another and occasionally superimposed over deep pits
(Simon 1982). Small Stemmed Tradition projectile points and quartz chipping debris were intermixed
within the burnt rock concentrations, while Orient Fishtail points were recovered peripheral to the rock
platforms. These features are suggestive of high bulk processing of resources derived from
wetland/stream settings. Similar features have also been reported at the Pine Hawk Site (19-MD-793)
located along the Assabet River in Acton (Waller and Ritchie 2001) and the Riverside 2 Site (19-PL-703)
situated along the Nemasket River in Lakeville (Waller 2009).
108
PAL Report No. 488
Summary and Assessment of the Research Questions
Reconstruction of the late-/post-glacial vegetation and climatic history of Black Pond in Norwell indicates
that a conifer forest dominated by white pine with hemlock had become established in the region by 9900
B.P. (Sneddon 1987). Oak was probably modestly present within the pine forest. By approximately 9500
B.P., birch and hemlock attained fairly stable levels while pine decreased. Oak increased rapidly reaching
peak influx by 8600 B.P. This period represented a time of maximum warmth and dryness and also
corresponded with a period of comparatively frequent forest fires. Hemlock has a low fire tolerance and
the increase in fires may have forced hemlocks to low-lying areas. Ragweed became abundant reaching a
peak at 8400 B.P. Davis (1965) hypothesized that generally warm and dry conditions during this period
contributed to decreased forest density and that openings within the forests contributed to the colonization
by ragweed. Beech and sycamore appeared nearly simultaneously ca. 7000 B.P. Hemlock began to
decline ca. 4700 B.P., while hickory arrived soon after. The establishment of hickory may have been
aided by openings in the forest vacated by dying hemlock trees. The transition from an open pond to a
closing bog mat at Black Pond commenced with the establishment of ericaceous flora by 3300 B.P. The
bog mat was in development at Black Pond by 3200 B.P. Development of the bog mat contributed to the
establishment of Atlantic white cedar, which arrived at Black Pond approximately 2500 B.P.
The Area 1 Site wetland system may have experienced a vegetative and environmental sequencing similar
to that at Black Pond summarized above. The low-lying wetlands that feed into Iron Mine Brook north of
the knoll atop of which the site is located may have supported a pond sometime before 4000 B.P. This
period coincides with the densest and most frequent period of occupation at the Area 1 Site. As the
smaller streams and ponds transitioned from open water to closing bog mat presumably between ca. 3300
and 2500 B.P., the Woodland Period inhabitants of the Area 1 Site altered their settlement and subsistence
regimes generally avoiding the site altogether. The archaeological data from the site is consistent with
regional palynological and archaeological data which suggests changes in wetlands (size, structure,
vegetation types) due to eutrophication and a climatic cooling trend influenced pre-contact Native
American settlement choice and resource use (Bradshaw et al. 1982; Nicholas 1991; Simon 1991;
Thorbahn 1982). Regional archaeological studies suggest settlement and resource focus shifts away from
interior and wetland/riverine settings towards the coast and estuary and salt marsh margins (Braun 1974;
Barber 1983; Dincauze 1973; Thorbahn 1984; Bernstein 1990, 1993). Braun (1974) notes that conditions
conducive for the establishment estuaries and shellfish beds followed stabilization of the coastline ca.
4000 years ago. Coastal resources were exploited as early as the Middle Archaic Period but appear to
have become increasingly important by ca. 4000 B.P. This trend only continued drawing focused
settlement away from the interior river systems towards the coast.
Research Question 4: What was the relationship of the site to Late Woodland/Contact
Period core areas of settlement to the south at Pembroke Ponds and to the north around the
Boston Basin, and did this orientation extend back to the Late/Transitional Archaic Period?
Native core areas were established along major river drainages where seasonal rounds were made
between the river estuary, its headwaters, and associated tributaries and interior ponds during the Contact
Period (450 to 300 B.P.). Native American movements along this interior-coastal axis were influenced by
the climate, seasonal availability of food and other resources, and the growing presence of European
colonists and settlers. River systems served as core areas of Contact Period Native American settlement
because of the diverse resources afforded by them which included freshwater, saltwater, and terrestrial
food resources, proximity and availability of agricultural lands, and the presence of navigable water
routes that assisted in transportation and movement (MHC 1982).
A relative absence of Woodland Period cultural deposits and materials at the Area 1 Site makes it difficult
to address the relationship between the Area 1 Site and Late Woodland/Contact Period core areas of
Native American settlement to the south at Pembroke Ponds and to the north around the Boston basin.
The Pembroke Ponds complex was the location of a major interior Native American core area. An
PAL Report No. 488 109
Chapter Eight
interior-coastal pattern of movement likely existed between the interior Pembroke Ponds complex and the
coastal North River/Plymouth area. The Pembroke Ponds core was reportedly occupied by the
Massachusett Indians with a major settlement located at Mattakeeset by the Contact Period. The coastal
core, which extended from the North River south to Plymouth Bay, included a major settlement at
Patuxet, the central location of a probable cultural and linguistic sub-group of Wampanoag (MHC 1982).
Another regional core to which the Area 1 Site could conceivably share connections was focused on the
Neponset River. Like that mentioned above, an interior-coastal pattern of movement likely operated
within the Neponset core. The coastal component extended from Dorchester south through Milton and
Quincy to perhaps the Fore River and beyond with most of the interior focused around large head-water
and smaller ponds of Canton, Sharon, and Walpole. Upland sections of the Fore/Monatiquot drainage also
were part of the Neponset core area (MHC 1982). Important lithic source areas such as the Blue Hills
igneous complex and the Mattapan volcanic complex were located within the Neponset core. The
Neponset, North River/Plymouth, and Pembroke Ponds cores continued to function as regional core areas
throughout the sixteenth and into the mid- to late- seventeenth centuries. Virulent diseases introduced to
the indigenous populations impacted these core areas most notably the settlement core at Patuxet (MHC
1982).
Wampatuck was the son and successor to Chickataubut, sachem of the Massachusett, in 1662.
Chickataubut’s village in the early seventeenth century was located on the Neponset River estuary. At the
time of his death of small pox in 1631, his territory extended from Neponset on the north, Duxbury to the
south, and from the coast to Bridgewater and Middleborough to the west. The Area 1 Site is located in the
central portion of this territory. Sometime between 1630 and 1660, the 3000 warriors of the Massachusett
tribe were reduced to a mere 300 leaving Mount Wollaston (Quincy) for the ponds and fields of
Mattakeeset (Pembroke Ponds complex). Wampatuck, as sachem of the drastically reduced tribe, sought
to insure a reservation or buffer zone between the English settlements in Duxbury and present-day
Hanson by insisting on continued ownership of the core area around the Pembroke Ponds. Wampatuck
reserved 900 acres for his son and 100 acres for George Wampy “for the express use of the Indians and
their heirs forever” (Town of Pembroke 1662). It is probable that the so-called “Thousand Acres” were
never purchased outright from the Indians, but were rather taken gradually by early settlers as the Indians
died off or left the area (Collamore 1884). In 1684, there were 40 Indians at Namattakeeset (Collamore
1867). In 1693, Wampatuck’s successor Jeremiah Momentague (or Momentaug) along with his wife
Abigail sold 100 acres at Namassakeeset Ponds to Major William Bradford of Plymouth (Smith 1912).
The Area 1 Site and the immediate Hanover vicinity were situated peripheral to the interior Pembroke
Ponds and coastal North River/Plymouth cores by the Contact Period. The database of known
archaeological sites indicates that the upper North River drainage was an area of intense Native American
settlement and resource exploitation during the Late and Transitional Archaic periods. This same database
also demonstrates a sharp decline in upland interior wetland and river margin land use during the
Woodland and into the Contact periods. Archaeological data recovered from the Area 1 Site is consistent
with this demonstrated pattern of regional Native American land use in eastern Massachusetts. This clear
shift in settlement choice and intensity (or lack thereof) of land use may be causally linked to a number of
factors that include resource preference and availability and perhaps changes in social and political
organization. Although the Area 1 Site was clearly located in a core of Native American settlement
between 4000 and 3000 years ago, a relatively lack of Woodland Period cultural deposits and materials
precludes an assessment of to what degree this core approximated those core areas of Native American
settlement known in sixteenth and seventeenth century Massachusetts.
110
PAL Report No. 488
Summary and Assessment of the Research Questions
Research Question 5: How does the lithic assemblage at the Area 1 Site reflect the pattern of
resource use and settlement, and what can this reveal about economic systems in the upper
North River drainage?
Site examination and data recovery archaeological investigations of the Area 1 Site yielded a dense
assortment of pre-contact Native American lithic artifacts. Some 323 chipped stone tools or tool
fragments (projectile points, bifaces, drills, scrapers, unifacial tools) and nearly 30,000 pieces of chipping
debris have been recovered from the site. Slightly more than 87 percent of the Area 1 Site lithic artifacts
were recovered in the Northeast Quadrant Concentration. The Area 1 Site cultural assemblage includes
artifacts that were manufactured out of locally, regionally, and extra-regionally derived lithic materials.
Lithic material types from the site were variable consisting mainly of felsites and quartz with lesser
amounts of other lithic materials such as argillite, quartzite, slate (Braintree slate, arkose, slate), chert,
chalcedony, jasper, and some unidentified materials (see Figure 6-11).
Roughly 48 percent of the Area 1 Site chipped stone tools were manufactured out of quartz, while quartz
comprised 51.5 percent of the site’s debitage assemblage. Forty-one and a half percent of the chipped
stone tools from the site were manufactured out of some variety of felsite, while 42 percent of the site
debitage is comprised of felsite. Felsites at the Area 1 Site include Hingham Red, Sally Rock, Saugus
jasper, Mattapan, Attleboro Red, Blue Hills rhyolite, and Lynn Volcanic varieties.
Quartz is readily available in cobble form from streams, coastal margins, and the glacial train, as small
boulders, or in boulder veins. Forty-five (88 percent) of the Small Stemmed Tradition (Small Stemmed
and/or Squibnocket Triangle) projectile points recovered from the Area 1 Site were manufactured out of
quartz. Reliance on quartz and to a lesser extent argillite for the manufacture of Small Stemmed Tradition
projectile points is typical for the greater Taunton Drainage Basin and reflects a reliance on locally
available and perhaps the presence of an established group territory. Diverse felsites are typically
recovered from sites located to the north and west of the Boston Basin during the Late Archaic. A
considerable proportion of the Area 1 Site Small Stemmed Tradition projectile points (19 of 46 or 41
percent) were recovered from in association with quartz workshop Feature 9. Other quartz artifacts from
Feature 9 included six untyped projectile point fragments, 14 bifaces, six unifacial tools, two core
remnants and over 3200 pieces of quartz chipping debris (flakes and shatter). The recovery of large
primary flakes, pieces of shatter with cobble cortex, and core remnants, numerous small to medium-sized
flakes, along with broken and/or unfinished tools indicates that all stages of bifacial tool manufacture
from initial cobble reduction to final tool finishing occurred within this workshop. Other lithic materials
were similarly worked through the entire reduction sequence. Several large Hingham red felsite primary
reduction flakes and a large piece of Lynn Volcanic felsite shatter with cobble cortex were recovered
from Feature 9 along with a large Hingham red felsite biface fragment. A Hingham red felsite projectile
point fragment was also recovered from Feature 9.
Deep pit Feature 13, situated seven meters north of Feature 9, also contained Small Stemmed points and a
high density of quartz chipping debris. Feature 13 underlay burnt rock platform/hearth Feature 2.
Relatively high densities of predominantly quartz chipping debris were recovered from between 50 and
100 cmbs in Feature 13. Whereas chipping debris from Feature 2 for the most part consisted of late stage
bifacial thinning and tertiary finishing flakes, debitage from Feature 13 primarily consisted of larger
flakes generated during secondary bifacial shaping. Quartz debitage from Features 9 and 13 accounts for
nearly 35 percent of the total quartz chipping debris recovered from the Area 1 Site during site
examination and data recovery archaeological investigations.
Much quartz and Hingham Red felsite from the Area 1 Site was wasted. Cobble cortex, large waste flakes
and shatter, and exhausted lithic cores suggest that Late Archaic occupants of the Area 1 Site had ready
access to these materials and did not need to ration their use. Furthermore, raw material size and attributes
PAL Report No. 488 111
Chapter Eight
suggest that these materials were acquired directly from their source areas and not through intermediary
agents (trade). Consequently, the lithic data from the Area 1 Site suggest that the Late Archaic Small
Stemmed Tradition occupants of the site engaged in a central-based wandering settlement system (sensu
Beardsley 1956) that not only included the immediate Hanover area but extended northward to Boston
Harbor.
Diagnostic Early and Middle Archaic projectile points recovered from the Area 1 Site are nearly all
manufactured out of felsitic materials. The three Early Archaic bifurcate based projectile points recovered
from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration were manufactured out of Blue Hills rhyolite, Lynn Volcanic
felsite, and tan felsite. These lithic materials indicate that the territorial range of those occupying the Area
1 Site during the Early Archaic Period extended at least as far as Northshore Massachusetts to the Boston
Basin.
Seven Middle Archaic Neville type projectile points were also recovered from the Area 1 Site as a result
of site examination and data recovery archaeological investigations. Neville points were manufactured out
of Lynn Volcanic felsite, Blue Hills rhyolite (N=3), Saugus jasper, Hingham Red felsite, and gray felsite.
Five of the Neville points were recovered from between 25 and 55 cmbs in contiguous EUs 7, 9 and 10
located within the Northeast Quadrant Concentration. Felsite comprised the majority of the chipping
debris recovered from in association with these Neville points. A relative absence of large primary flakes
and shatter suggest that felsites were transported to the Area 1 Site as quarry blanks or preforms only to
be further reduced into formal tools. Petrographic thin sections and XRF analysis suggest the
Lynn/Mattapan volcanic suite as the most likely source area for these materials. An argillite Middle
Archaic Stark projectile point was also recovered from the site. Other Middle Archaic artifacts recovered
from the site included a felsite Neville projectile point basal fragment, a felsite Neville-like drill, an
arkose bifacial scraper, and a Blue Hills rhyolite biface fragment. Small pit Features 2 and 3, associated
with Feature 1 radiocarbon dated to 7740 ± 150 B.P., yielded 266 pieces of arkose (16 percent), Braintree
slate (41 percent), felsite (22 percent), and quartz (12 percent) chipping debris.
Middle Archaic lithic materials from the Area 1 Site are indicative of a central-based wandering
settlement pattern focused within a large territory that extended from Northshore Massachusetts to the
southern extent of Boston Harbor. Many of these materials appear to have been transported from their
source areas to the site as quarry blanks or preforms, where they were further reduced and fashioned into
finished chipped stone tools. Artifact density and the site’s feature context suggest that the Area 1 site was
occupied by a modest population that may have included an extended family or perhaps several small
family groups during the Middle Archaic Period. The site’s archaeological content is consistent with
residential mobility social structure whereby small family groups, as opposed to smaller task oriented
groups, traveled together to resource areas for purposes of resource exploitation (Binford 1980).
Like most Early and Middle Archaic artifacts from the Area 1 Site, most of the Transitional Archaic
Period projectile points recovered from the site (86 percent) were manufactured out felsite. Felsite
varieties recovered from the site included gray felsite, purple felsite, Hingham Red felsite, and Lynn
Volcanic felsite. These materials are consistent with a generally mobile settlement system.
Conclusions
Recovery and analysis of the Area 1 Site’s archaeological content contributed to our knowledge of precontact Native American settlement, resource use, and technology in eastern Massachusetts from the
Early Archaic to the Middle Woodland Periods. Archaeological investigations have shown that the site
contained evidence for repeated Native American occupation that extended from the Early Archaic
through Transitional Archaic Periods. Limited archaeological data indicates the site was only occasionally
occupied for very brief periods of time during the Woodland Period. Cultural materials, radiocarbon-
112
PAL Report No. 488
Summary and Assessment of the Research Questions
dated features, and petrographic/geochemical data of selected lithic samples have provided new
information on pre-contact Native American land use within Massachusetts’ interior wetland
environmental settings.
Archaeological data collected from the site during site examination and data recovery field investigations
was useful for addressing research questions developed for the Hanover Marketplace project and to
mitigate the effects that commercial construction would have on the Area 1 Site. The MHC expressed
satisfaction that the data recovery program was conducted in accordance with State Archaeologist’s
standards (950 CMR 70) and those outlined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeological
Investigations following a review of PAL’s interim data management memorandum and site visits by
MHC staff throughout fieldwork. The MHC concurred with PAL’s recommendations that no additional
archaeological excavations were required for the Hanover Marketplace project and permitted project
construction. Submission of this combined Area 1 and Area 2 site examination and Area 1 Site data
recovery report satisfies the conditions of Massachusetts State Archaeologists Permit No. 1242 and
effectively completes cultural resources archaeological investigations for the Hanover Marketplace
project area.
PAL Report No. 488 113
REFERENCES
Barber, Russell, J.
1979
A Summary of Cultural Resource Information on the Continental Shelf from the Bay of
Fundy to Cape Hatteras. Archaeology and Paleontology vol. 2. Institute for Conservation
Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1983
Research Design: Archaeological Data Recovery at Four Sites on Annasnappet Pond,
Proposed Route 44 Location, Carver, Massachusetts. Institute for Conservation
Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Barnes, Carol Ruth
1980
Feature Analysis: A Neglected Tool in Archaeological Survey and Interpretation. Man in
the Northeast 20:101-113.
Beardsley, Richard K., Preston Holder, Alex D. Krieger, Betty J. Meggers, John B.Rinaldo, Paul Kutsche
1956
Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning. Memoirs of the
Society for American Archaeology, No. 11, Seminars in Archaeology. Pp. 129-157
Begley, William R.
1994
Archaeological Investigations at the Area 1 Site (19-PL-749), Hanover Marketplace
Project Area, Hanover, Massachusetts. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of
the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Albany, NY.
Begley, William R., and Ann K. Davin
1996
Data Recovery Program, Riverside 2 (19-PL-703) and Riverside 3 (19-PL-702) Sites,
Lakeville Corporate Park Project Area, Lakeville, Massachusetts. The Public
Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report No. 511. Submitted to Canpro Investments Limited,
Lakeville, MA; Sverdrup Corporation, Boston, MA; and Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority, Quincy, MA.
Bendremer, Jeffery C.M., and Robert E. Dewar
1993
The Advent of Maize Horticulture in New England. In Corn and Culture in the
Prehistoric New World, edited by S. Johannssen and C. Hastorf, pp. 369–393. Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
Bhiry, N., and L. Filion
1996
Mid-Holocene Hemlock Decline in Eastern North America Linked with Phytophagous
Insect Activity. Quaternary Research 45:312–320.
Bernstein, David J.
1990
Prehistoric Seasonality studies in Coastal Southern New England. American
Anthropologist 92(1):96-115.
1993
Prehistoric Settlement on the Southern New England Coast: The Record from
Narragansett Bay. Academic Press, Inc. Boston, MA.
PAL Report No. 488
115
References
Binford, Lewis R.
1980
Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement and Archaeological Site
Formation. American Antiquity 45:4–20
Bourne, Russell
1990
The Red King’s Rebellion: Racial Politics in New England 1675-1678. Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
Bradley, James W., and Jeff Boudreau
2006
Re-Assessing Wapanucket: PaleoIndians in Southeast MA. Bulletin of the Massachusetts
Archaeological Society 67(2):2006.
Bradshaw, Richard, Sheldon Nelson, and Katrina McGowan
1982
Paleoecological Reconstruction of the Taunton Quadrangle, Massachusetts. Final Report
of the Interstate Highway 495 Archaeological Data Recovery Program, vol. III, edited by
Peter F. Thorbahn. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology,
Brown University. Submitted to the Massachusetts Highway Department, Boston, MA.
Braun, David P.
1974
Explanatory Models for the Evolution of Coastal Adaptation in Prehistoric Eastern New
England. American Antiquity 39(4):582–596.
Bunker, Victoria
1992
Stratified Components of the Gulf
Amoskeag Falls. In Early Holocene
Brian Robinson, James Peterson,
Publications in Maine Archaeology,
Augusta, ME.
of Maine Archaic Tradition at the Eddy Site,
Occupation in Northern New England, edited by
and Ann Robinson, pp. 135–148. Occasional
No. 9, Maine Historic Preservation Commission,
Byers, Douglas S.
1954
Bull Brook: A Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, Massachusetts. American Antiquity 19:233–
256.
Calogero, Barbara
1992
Lithic Misidentification. Man in the Northeast 43:87–90.
Collamore, Francis
1884
History of Pembroke. In History of Plymouth County, Massachusetts, edited by D.
Hamilton Hurd. J.W. Lewis, Philadelphia, PA.
Cox, Deborah C.
1982
Bay Street I Site (7KP). Final Report of the Interstate Highway 495 Archaeological Data
Recovery Program, Vol. II, edited by Peter F. Thorbahn. The Public Archaeology
Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Brown University Report. Submitted to the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Boston, MA.
Dewar, Robert E., and Kevin A. McBride
1992
Remnant Settlement Patterns. In Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by
Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 227–255. Plenum Press, New York,
NY.
116
PAL Report No. 488
References
Dincauze, Dena F.
1968
Cremation Cemeteries in Eastern Massachusetts. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology 59(1). Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA.
1972
The Atlantic Phase: A Late Archaic Culture in Massachusetts. Man in the Northeast
4:40–61.
1973
Prehistoric Occupation of the Charles River Estuary: A Paleographic Study.
Archaeological Society of Connecticut Bulletin 38: 25-29.
1974
An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Greater Boston Area. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 2(1):39–67.
1975
The Late Archaic Period in Southern New England. Arctic Anthropology 12(2):23–34.
1976
The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire. Peabody
Museum Monographs 4. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1980
Research Priorities in Northeast Prehistory. In Proceedings of the Conference on
Northeastern Archaeology, edited by James A. Moore. Research Reports Number 19:2948. Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
1990
A Capsule Prehistory of Southern New England. The Pequots in Southern New England:
The Fall and Rise of an American Nation, edited by Laurence M. Hauptman and James
D. Wherry, pp. 19–32. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.
1993
Fluted Points in the Eastern Forest. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic PaleoIndian Adaptations. Chapter 20, edited by Olgo Soffer and N.D. Praslov, pp. 279–292.
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Dincauze, Dena F., and Mitchell Mulholland
1977
Early and Middle Archaic Site Distributions and Habitats in Southern New England.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288:439–456.
Doucette, Dianna, and John R. Cross
1997
Annasnappet Pond Archaeological District, North Carver Massachusetts. An
Archaeological Data Recovery Program. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
Report No. 580. Prepared for US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration and Massachusetts Highway Department, Boston, MA.
Dragoo, Don W.
1976
Some Aspects of Eastern North American Prehistory: A Review 1975. American
Antiquity 41:3–27.
Dudek, Martin G.
2005
The Whortleberry Hill Site: An Early Holocene Camp in Dracut, MA. Bulletin of the
Massachusetts Archaeological Society. 66:12–21.
PAL Report No. 488 117
References
Dumont, John
1981
The PaleoIndian–Early Archaic Continuum: An Environmental Approach. Archaeology
of Eastern North America 9:18–37.
Filios, Elena L.
1989
The End of the Beginning or the Beginning of the End: The Third Millennium in
Southern New England. Man in the Northeast 38:79–93.
Fitting, James
1978
Regional Cultural Development, 300 B.C. to A.D. 1000. In Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol. 15:44–57.
Fogelman, Gary L.
1992
Projectile Point Typology for Pennsylvania and the Northeast. Fogelman Publishing
Company, Turbotville, PA.
Forrest, Daniel
1999
Beyond Presence and Absence: Establishing Diversity in Connecticut’s Early Holocene
Archaeological Record. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 62:79–100.
Fowler, William S., and Curtiss Hoffman
1991
A Handbook of Indian Artifacts from Southern New England. From the Original Text of
William S. Fowler Revised by Curtiss R. Hoffman. Massachusetts Archaeological
Society, Special Publication #4, Middleborough, MA.
Gaudreau, Denise C., and Thomas Webb
1985
Late Quaternary Pollen Stratigraphy and Isocrone Maps for the Northeastern United
States. In Pollen Records of the Late Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V.
Bryant, Jr. and R.G. Holloway. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists
Foundation, Dallas, TX.
Gramly, Richard Michael
1982
The Vail Site: A Palaeo-Indian Encampment in Maine. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of
Natural Sciences Vol. 30, Buffalo, NY.
Grimes, John R.
1980
“A New Look at Bull Brook.” Anthropology 3:1–2.
Grimes, John, W. Eldridge, B.G. Grimes, A. Vaccaro, F. Vaccaro, J. Vaccaro, N. Vaccaro, and A. Orsini
1984
Bull Brook II. New Experiments upon the Record of Eastern PaleoIndian Cultures.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:159–183.
Hasenstab, Robert
1991
Wetlands as a Critical Variable in Predictive Modeling of Prehistoric Site Locations: A
Case Study from the Passaic Basin. Man in the Northeast 42:39–61.
Hecker, Howard M.
1995
Jasper Flakes and Jack’s Reef Points at Adams Point: Speculations on Interregional
Exchange in Late Middle Woodland Times in Coastal New Hampshire. The New
Hampshire Archaeologist 35(1):61–83.
118
PAL Report No. 488
References
Hermes, O. Don, and Duncan Ritchie
1997a
Application of Petrographic and Geochemical Methods to Sourcing Felsitic
Archaeological Materials in Southeastern New England. Geoarchaeology: An
International Journal 12(1):1-30.
1997b
Nondestructive Trace Element Analysis of Archaeological Felsite by Energy-Dispersive
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 12(1):3140.
Jones, Brian D., and Daniel T. Forrest
2003
Life in a Postglacial Landscape: Settlement-Subsistence Change during the PleistoceneHolocene Transition in Southern New England. In Geoarchaeology of Landscapes in the
Glacieated Northeast, edited by David L. Cremeens and John P. Hart, pp. 75–89.
University of the State of New York, Albany, NY.
Juli, Harold D., and Kevin A. McBride
1984
The Early and Middle Woodland Periods of Connecticut Prehistory: Focus on the Lower
Connecticut River Valley. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 47:89–
98.
Kelso, Gerald K., Duncan Ritchie, and Nicole Misso
2000
Pollen Record Preservation Processes in the Salem Neck Sewage Plant Shell Midden (19ES-471), Salem, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:235–240.
Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd
1988
Coming Into the Country: Early PaleoIndian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity
53(2):231–244.
Lavin, Lucianne
1988
Coastal Adaptation in Southern New England and Southern New York. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 16:101–120.
Leveillee, Alan
1995
A Program of Archaeological Data Recovery: The Millbury III Cremation Complex,
Millbury, Massachusetts, Vol. II. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report No.
396. Submitted to New England Power Service Company, Westborough, MA.
Luedtke, Barbara E.
1987
The Pennsylvania Connection: Jasper in Massachusetts Archaeological Sites. Bulletin of
the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 48(1):37–47.
Mahlstedt, Thomas
1985
Prehistoric Archaeological Collection Analysis in Southeastern Massachusetts: Report
on the Raymond Seamans Jr. Collection. On file, Massachusetts Historical Commission,
Boston, MA.
Massachusetts Historical Commission
1982
Historic and Archaeological Resources of Southeast Massachusetts: A Framework for
Preservation Decisions. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
PAL Report No. 488 119
References
1984
Guide to Prehistoric Site Files and Artifact Classification System. Massachusetts
Historical Commission, Office of the Secretary of State, Boston, MA.
Maymon, Jeffery H., and Charles E. Bolian
1992
The Wadleigh Falls Site: An Early and Middle Archaic Period Site in Southeastern New
Hampshire. In Early Holocene Occupation in Northern New England, edited by Brian S.
Robinson, James B. Petersen, and Ann K. Robinson, pp. 117–134. Occasional
Publications in Maine Archaeology, No. 9, Maine Historic Preservation Commission,
Augusta, ME.
McBride, Kevin A.
1984
Prehistory of the Lower Connecticut River Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
McBride, Kevin A., and Robert E. Dewar
1987
Agriculture and Cultural Evolution: Causes and Effects in the Lower Connecticut River
Valley. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by
William F. Keegan, pp. 305–328. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional
Papers No. 7, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.
McWeeney, Lucinda
1999
A review of Late Pleistocene and Holocene Climate Changes in Southern New England.
Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut 62:3–18.
Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith
1986
PaleoIndian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In
Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the
Eastern Woodlands, edited by Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 3–31. Center for Archaeological
Investigations Occasional Papers No. 6, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.
Missio, Nicole and Donald G. Jones
1992
Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Hanover Marketplace Project in
Hanover, Massachusetts. Office of Public Archaeology, Boston University Report.
Submitted to Carpionato Corporation, Johnston, RI.
Mulholland, Mitchell T.
1988
Territoriality and Horticulture: A Perspective for Prehistoric Southern New England. In
Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by George P. Nicholas,
pp. 137–164. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Newby, Paige
2000
Report on the Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction for Crane Swamp and Cedar Swamp
Pond, Central Massachusetts. Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University,
Providence, RI.
Newby, P.E., and T. Webb III
1994
Radiocarbon Dated Pollen and Sediment Records from near the Boylston Street Fishweir
Site in Boston, Massachusetts. Quaternary Research 41:214–224.
120
PAL Report No. 488
References
Newby, Paige, Thompson Webb III, and R.S. Webb
1986
Pollen and Sediment Records for Houghtons Pond in Eastern Massachusetts. Department
of Geological Sciences, Brown University Report. Submitted to The Public Archaeology
Laboratory, Pawtucket, RI.
Newby, Paige E., Peter Killoran, Mahlon R. Waldorf, Bryan N. Shuman, Robert S. Webb, and Thompson
Webb
2000
14,000 Years of Sediment, Vegetation, and Water-Level Changes at the Makepeace
Cedar Swamp, Southeastern Massachusetts. Quaternary Research 53:352–368.
Nicholas, George P.
1987
Rethinking the Early Archaic. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:99–123.
1991
Places and Spaces: Changing Patterns in Wetland Use in Southern New England. Man in
the Northeast 42:75–98.
Ogden, J. Gordon
1977
The Late Quaternary Paleoenvironmental Record of the Northeastern North America.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 288:16–34.
Pagoulatos, Peter
1988
Terminal Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the Connecticut River Valley. Man in
the Northeast 35:71–94.
Pfeiffer, John
1980
The Griffin Site: A Susquehanna Cremation Burial in Southern Connecticut. Man in the
Northeast 19:129–133.
Raber, Michael S., Stephen P. Carini, Gifford Fogle, and Roger Moeller
1991
Archaeological Intensive Survey and Site Examinations for the Proposed Riverside Park,
Lakeville, Massachusetts: The Bridge Street II and Riverside Sites 1-8. Raber Associates
Report. Submitted to Lakeville Realty Trust, Middleborough, MA.
Ritchie, Duncan
1983
A Review of Past and Current Research in the Sudbury and Assabet Drainages. Man in
the Northeast 25:83–93.
Ritchie, Duncan, and Richard A. Gould
1985
Back to the Source: A Preliminary Account of the Massachusett Hill Quarry Complex. In
Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by Max Pavesic, James
Woods, and Mark Plew, pp. 35–53. University of New Mexico Press, Alburquerque, NM.
Ritchie, Duncan and O. Donald Hermes
1990
Geochemical Analysis of Volcanic Materials from the Boston Basin and Prehistoric
Lithic Resource Use. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern
Anthropological Association, Burlington, VT.
1992
Geochemical and Petrographic Characteristics of Material from Lithic Source Areas in
the Lynn-Mattapan Volcanic Complex. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the
Northeastern Anthropological Association, Bridgewater, MA.
PAL Report No. 488 121
References
Ritchie, William A.
1969
The Archaeology of Martha's Vineyard. Natural History Press, Garden City, NY.
1971
A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. Revised edition. New
York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 384, Albany, NY.
1980
The Archaeology of New York State. Harbor Hill Books, Harrison, NY.
Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk
1973
Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science
Service Memoir 20, Albany, NY.
Robbins, Maurice
1980
Wapanucket. Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Attleboro, MA.
Robbins, M., and G. Agogino
1964
The Wapanucket No. 8 Site: A Clovis-Archaic Site in Massachusetts. American Antiquity
29:509–513.
Suter, Suzanne
1985
Late Glacial and Holocene Vegetation History in Southeastern Massachusetts: A 14,000
Year Pollen Record. Current Research in the Pleistocene Vol. 2, pp. 87–89.
Simon, Brona G.
1982
Canoe River West Site. In The Prehistoric Site Summaries: Final Report of the Interstate
Highway 495 Archaeological Data Recovery Program, Vol. II, edited by Peter F.
Thorbahn. Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, RI. Submitted to
the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Boston, MA.
1991
Smith, Susan
1912
Prehistoric Land Use and Changing Paleoecological Conditions at Titicut Swamp in
Southeastern Massachusetts. Man in the Northeast 42:63–74.
Ancestors of Queen Patience. In Historic Pembroke, 1712–1912. August Edition
Bryantville News, pp. 14–15, Pembroke, MA.
Sneddon, Leslie
1987
A Late Glacial and Post Glacial Vegetation History of Black Pond, Norwell,
Massachusetts. On file, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA.
Sneddon, Leslie, and Lawrence Kaplan
1987
Pollen Analysis From Cedar Swamp Pond, Westborough, Massachusetts. Quarterly of
the Elmer Ekblaw Chapter of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 9(2):1–15.
Snow, Dean
1980
The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Spiess, Arthur, Deborah Wilson, and James Bradley
1998
PaleoIndian Occupation in the New England-Maritimes Region: Beyond Cultural
Ecology. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26:201–264.
122
PAL Report No. 488
References
Stewart, Marilyn C.
1977
Pits in the Northeast: A Typological Analysis. In Current Perspectives in Northeastern
Archaeology, edited by R.E. Funk and C.F. Hayes III. Researches and Transactions of
the New York State Archaeological Association, Volume 17, No. 1.
Stothers, David M.
1996
Resource Procurement and Band Territories: A Model for Lower Great Lakes
PaleoIndian and Early Archaic Settlement Systems. Archaeology of Eastern North
America 24:173–216.
Taylor, William B.
1970
Seaver Farm Red Paint Burials. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 31
(3&4):1–8.
1976
A Bifurcate Point Concentration. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society
37 (3-4):36–44.
Thorbahn, Peter F.
1982
Prehistoric Settlement Systems of Southern New England: Final Report of the I-495 Data
Recovery Program. Department of Anthropology, Brown University. Submitted to the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Boston, MA.
1984
Survey and Planning Project Completion Report: Prehistoric Land Use Zones Along the
Taunton River. The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. Report. Submitted to the
Massachusetts Historical Commission, Office of the Secretary of State, Boston, MA.
Town of Pembroke
1662
Records of the Major's Purchase, 1662-1785. Original ms. on file Town Clerk's Office,
Pembroke, MA.
Turnbaugh, William A.
1993a
Assessing the Significance of European Goods in Seventeenth Century Narragansett
Society. In Ethnohistory and Archaeology Approaches to Postcontact Change in the
Americas, edited by J. Daniel Rogers and Samuel M. Wilson, pp 133–160. Plenum Press,
New York, NY.
1993b
Community, Commodities, and the Concept Property in Seventeenth Century
Narragansett Society. Archaeology of Eastern North America Papers in Honor of Stephen
Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman. Mississippi Department of Archives and History,
Jackson, MS.
United States Department of Agriculture
1969
Soil Survey of Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Waguespack, Nicole M., and Todd A. Surovell
2003
Clovis Hunting Strategies, or How to Make Out on Plentiful Resources. American
Antiquity 68(2):333–352.
PAL Report No. 488 123
References
Waller, Jr., Joseph N.
2009
Archaeological Investigation of the Kensington Court at Lakeville Station Project Area:
Supplemental Data Recovery in Nemasket Indian Territory Lakeville, Massachusetts.
PAL Report No. 2143.01, Submitted to KCLS Construction Holding Company, LLC,
Sharon, MA.
2012
Archaeological Site Examination Federal Pond Archaeological Site (19-Pl-1156) Lower
SEMA 345 kV Transmission Project, Plymouth, Massachusetts. PAL Report No. 2431.01,
Submitted to Epsilon Associates, Inc., Maynard, MA.
Waller, Joseph N. and Duncan Ritchie
2001
A Program of Archaeological Data Recovery at the Pine Hawk Site (19-MD-793) Acton,
Massachusetts. PAL Report No. 1027, Submitted to Woodard & Curran, Dedham, MA.
Yu, Z., J.H. Andrews, and U. Eicher
1997
Middle Holocene Dry Climate Change Caused by Change in Atmospheric Circulation
Patters: Evidence from Lake Levels and Staple Isotopes. Geology 25:251–254.
Zen, E., Richard Goldsmith, Nicholas Ratcliffe, Peter Robinson, Rolfe Stanley, Norman Hatch, Andrew
Shride, Elaine Weed, and David Wones
1983
A Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Department of Public Works, Boston, MA.
124
PAL Report No. 488