488 Hanover Technical Report

7/17/2019 488 Hanover Technical Report

1/280

TECHNICAL REPORT

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONSHANOVER MARKETPLACE PROJECT AREA

AREA 1 SITE (19-PL-749)

AREA 2 SITE (19-PL-750)

Hanover, Massachusetts

William BegleyJoseph N. Waller, Jr.

Suzanne Cherau

Submitted to:

Carpionato Corporation1414 Atwood Avenue

Johnston, Rhode Island 02919

Submitted by:

The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.26 Main Street


2/280

PAL Publications

CARTOGRAPHERS


3/280


4/280


5/280

MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT

PAL conducted archaeological site examinations of the Area 1 (19-PL-749) and Area 2 (1and archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site within the Hanover MarketplacMassachusetts. Recovery and analysis of the Area 1 Sites archaeological content cont

knowledge of pre-contact Native American settlement, resource use, and technolo

Massachusetts. Archaeological investigations resulted in the recovery of a range of Early AArchaic, Late Archaic, and Transitional pre-contact Native American cultural matedocumentation of numerous archaeological features that included refuse pits, stone platform

lithic workshops. Cultural features were radiocarbon dated to the Middle Archaic (7740 Late Archaic (4600 90 B.P.; 3540 80 B.P.; 3510 90 B.P.; and 3290 80 B.P.) Pearchaeological data indicates the site was only occasionally occupied for very brief periods

the Woodland Period.

Archaeological data collected from the site during site examination and data recovery field

was useful for addressing research questions developed for the Hanover Marketplace

mitigate the effects that commercial construction would have on the Area 1 Site.


6/280


7/280


8/280

Table of Contents

Curation .................................................................................................................

Public Education Component ........................ ........................... ............................ ..

6. RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ........................ ...Results of the Archaeological Site Examination ........................... .......................... .......

Area 1 Site .............................................................................................................Area 2 Site .............................................................................................................

Archaeological Data Recovery - Area 1 Site (19-PL-749) ......................... ....................

S5W10 Concentration Area .......................... .......................... ........................... .....Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area ..................... ......................... ...................

Charcoal .................................................................................................................

7. RESULTS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES ....................... ......................Petrographic and Geochemical Analysis ........................... .......................... ...................Depositional History .....................................................................................................

Early Archaic Occupation ....................... ........................... .......................... ..........Middle Archaic Occupation ....................................... ........................... .................

Late Archaic Occupation .......................... ........................... ........................... ........

Transitional Archaic Occupation ........................ ......................... .......................... .

Middle Woodland Occupation ........................ .......................... ........................... ...

8. SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................Evaluation of Archaeological Data ............................................. .......................... ........

Stated Goals/Data Collection .................................................................................Assessment of Research Questions ....................... ........................... .......................... ...

Research Question 1: What was the extent and nature of Late Archaic Perioduse of the Area 1 Site? Does the data conform to the general regional model? ........

Research Question 2: What information does the Area 1 Site contain on the transiti

between the Archaic and Woodland Period? ......................... ......................... .........Research Question 3: What is the nature and extent of wetland resource exploitationthe Area 1 Site, and how does this reflect changes in the environment around 4000

to 3000 years ago? ..................................................................................................

Research Question 4: What was the relationship of the site to Late Woodland/ContaPeriod core areas of settlement to the south at Pembroke Ponds and to the north aro

Boston Basin, and did this orientation extend back to the Late/Transitional ArchaicResearch Question 5: How does the lithic assemblage at the Area 1 Site reflect the

of resource use and settlement, and what can this reveal about economic systems inNorth River drainage? ....................... .......................... .......................... .................

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................

APPENDICES


9/280

Ta

C CATALOG OF CULTURAL MATERIAL, AREA 1 SITE, DATA RECOVERY

PROGRAM .................................................................................................................

D AREA 1 SITE LITHIC METRICS ......................... ............................. ......................

E RADIOCARBON RESULTS ........................ ........................... .......................... .........

F FLORAL REMAINS ....................... ........................... .......................... ......................

G PETROGRAPHIC RESULTS ........................ ............................ ........................... ....


10/280

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Location of Hanover within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts .............

Figure 1-2. Hanover Marketplace on the Hanover, USGS topographic quadrangle .......

Figure 1-3. Areas of archaeological testing, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and

Jones 1992) ................................................................................................

Figure 1-4. Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 1, Hanover Marketplace

(source: Missio and Jones 1992) ................................................ ................

Figure 1-5. Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 2, Hanover Marketplace (source: Mand Jones 1992) ........................ .......................... ........................... ............

Figure 2-1. Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 1 Site ..........

Figure 2-2. Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 2 Site ..........

Figure 3-1. Location of the Hanover Marketplace within the Seaboard Lowland

physiographic province of southern New England (source: Fenneman 1938

Figure 3-2. Late Pleistocene glacial advance in southeastern Massachusetts ..................

Figure 4-1. The Hanover Marketplace in relation to core areas of seventeenth-century

Native American settlement within southeastern Massachusetts(source: MHC 1982) .......................... .......................... ........................... ...

Figure 6-1. Plan and profile of Area 1 Site Feature 1 in test pit N45E0 ..........................

Figure 6-2. Plan and profile of Area 1 Site Feature 2 in test pit N55E0 ..........................

Figure 6-3. Profile of archaeological site examination EU 3 showing Feature 2 ............

Figure 6-4. Locations of archaeological test units, Northeast Quadrant Concentration A

Area 1 Site .................................................................................................

Figure 6-5. Locations of archaeological test units, S5W10 Quadrant Concentration Are

Area 1 Site .................................................................................................


11/280

Figure 6-9. Atl atl weights from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace (a. EU 1-NW, 3

cmbs; b. EU 20-NE, 15-20 cmbs) ................................. .......................... ...

Figure 6-10. Cobble tool/stone weight from EU 2, Area 1 Site .......................... .............

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 .................................................................................................

Figure 6-13. Depths of cultural features from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace ......

Figure 6-14. Plan of cultural features from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site.

Figure 6-15. Profile of cultural features from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Sit

Figure 6-16. Bifurcate-based projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentratio

Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 8-NE, 40-45 cmbs; b. fragments from EU 8 and E

c. EU 16-South Half, 35-40 cmbs) ....................... ........................... ...........

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. EU30-35 cmbs; c. EU 11-North half, 15-20 cmbs; d. EU 7-SE, 25-30 cmbs; e.

45-50 cmbs; f. EU 23-SW, 30-35 cmbs) ................................... .................

Figure 6-18. Representative Brewerton-eared projectile points from the NortheastQuadrant 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 ConcentratioArea, Area 1 Site (a. EU19-NE, 10-15 cmbs; b. EU21-East half, 20-25 cmb

c. EU 9-NW, 25-30 cmbs; d. EU13-North half, 45-50 cmbs; e. EU11-South

30-35 cmbs; f. EU10-NE, 25-30 cmbs) ......................... ......................... ....

Figure 6-20. Squibnocket stemmed projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant ConceArea, Area 1 Site (a. EU 7-SE, 30-35 cmbs; b. EU 7-NW, 15-20 cmbs; c. E10-15 cmbs; d. EU19-SE, 105-110 cmbs; e. EU14-NW, 20-25 cmbs; f. EU

25-30 cmbs). .............................................................................................

Figure 6-21. Squibnocket triangle projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant ConcenArea, Area 1 Site (a. EU21-East half, 10-15 cmbs; b. EU 7-SW, 15-20 cmb

c. EU15-East half, 20-25 cmbs; d. EU20-NW, 15-20 cmbs) ........................


12/280

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. EU15-20 cmbs; c. EU12-NW, 10-15 cmbs; d. EU12-NW, 20-25 cmbs; e. EU 8

20-25 cmbs) ...............................................................................................

Figure 6-24. Wayland Notched projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant ConcentraArea, Area 1 Site (a. EU14-SW, 5-10 cmbs; b. EU 8-SE, 10-15 cmbs; c. EU

10-15 cmbs) ...............................................................................................

Figure 6-25. Orient Fishtail projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration

Area 1 Site (a. EU15-West half, 10-15 cmbs; b. EU18-East half, 15-20 cmb

c. EU19-SE, 5-10 cmbs; d. EU 7-NW, 20-25 cmbs ........................ ............

Figure 6-26. Jacks Reef Corner Notched projectile point from data recovery EU 12 at thArea 1 Site .................................................................................................

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, 1cmbs; f. EU10-SW, 15-20 cmbs; g. EU06-SE, 30-35 cmbs; h. EU07-SE, 30cmbs; i. EU10-35-40 cmbs; j. EU19-SW, 25-30 cmbs ........................ ........

Figure 6-28. Representative large bifaces from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration A

Area 1 Site (a. EU17-South half, 25-30 cmbs; b. EU14-NW, 20-25 cmbs;c. EU08-SW, 45-50 cmbs) .......................... ........................... .....................

Figure 6-29. Stone pestle from EU 20, Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 S

Figure 6-30. Lithic chipping debris materials from the Northeast Quadrant ConcentratioArea, Area 1 Site. ........................ ........................... .......................... .........

Figure 6-31. Lithic chipping debris by depth from the Site Northeast Quadrant Concentr

Area, Area 1 Site ......................... ........................... .......................... .........

Figure 6-32. Plan of Native American cultural features 5, 6, and 8 in EUs 6, 8, and 11, ASite ............................................................................................................

Figure 6-33. Feature 5 stratigraphic profile of EU 6, Area 1 Site ........................... .........

Figure 6-34. Features 6 and 8 stratigraphic profiles in EU 8, Area 1 Site .........................

Figure 6-35. Plan of Feature 9 in EUs 12, 14, 20, and 22, Area 1 Site ......................... ...


13/280

Figure 6-40. Plan of Feature 13 data recover EU19 and site examination EU3, Area 1 Si

Figure 6-41. East and west profile of EU19 showing Feature 2 and Feature 13, Area 1 S


14/280

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1. Native American Cultural Chronology for Southern New England .............

Table 6-1. Pre-contact Native American Cultural Material by Depth, Area 1 Site,

Hanover Marketplace, Site Examination ............................................ ........

Table 6-2. Radiocarbon Results from Selected Features Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketp

Table 6-3. Pre-contact Native American Cultural Material by Depth, Area 2 Site,Hanover Marketplace, Site Examination ............................................ ........

Table 6-4. Vertical Distribution of Chipping Debris Recovered during Archaeological

Data Recovery of the Area 1 Site. .......................... ............................ ........

Table 6-5. Distribution of Chipping Debris by Size Range Recovered during the Data

Recovery Program of the Area 1 Site. .......................... .......................... ....

Table 6-6. Inventory of Cultural Features Identified within the S5W10 Concentration A

Area 1 Site Data Recovery Program ......................... ........................... ........

Table 6-7. Distribution of Native American stone tools from the Area 1 Site, HanoverMarketplace ...............................................................................................

Table 6-8. Projectile and projectile point fragments from the Area 1 Site, Hanover

Marketplace ...............................................................................................

Table 6-9. Nineteenth and twentieth century cultural materials recovered during thearchaeological site examination of the Area 1 and Area 2 Sites, Hanover

Marketplace ...............................................................................................

Table 6-10. Post-contact period cultural materials recovered during data recovery

archaeological investigations of the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace ......

Table 6-11. Data recovery and site examination radiocarbon dates from the Area 1

Site, Hanover Marketplace.............................. ......................... ..................

Table 7-1. Lithic Samples and Artifacts Examined by Petrographic and GeochemicalAnalysis .....................................................................................................

Table 7-2 Trace Element Data for Artifact and Debitage Samples


15/280

CHAP

INTROD

PAL (The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.) conducted archaeological site examination(19-PL-749) and Area 2 (19-PL-750) sites and archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Hanover Marketplace in Hanover, Massachusetts (Figure 1-1). The Carpionato Corporation

the development of the Hanover Marketplace, which is located west of Columbia Road (R

Hanover Four Corners (Figure 1-2). The 85,000 square foot (ft2) retail center is located parcel of land and includes a 50,393 ft2Shaws Supermarket and an attached 9,800 sq ft2C

Development also included construction of a large parking lot, an access drive adjacent to C(Route 53), and a landscaped buffer zone.

Project History

Figure 1-1. Location of Hanover within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


16/280

Chapter One


17/280aeologicaltesting,HanoverMarketplac

e(source:MissioandJones1992).


18/280

Chapter One


19/280


20/280

Chapter One

cultural materials recovered from Area 1 within the Hanover Marketplace project area in

argillite, felsite, and chert chipping debris and three lithic cores (Missio and Jones 1992). TArea 2 sites were considered potentially eligible for listing in the State or National Regist

Places and the OPA concluded with a recommendation for archaeological site examinationand Area 2 sites.

PAL conducted archaeological site examination of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites, Hanover M

June and July 1992 under archaeological permit No. 1242 issued by the Massachus

Commission/State Archaeologist. Archaeological site examination of the Area 1 Site rrecovery of pre-contact Native American cultural materials (lithic debitage, chipped and

stone tools, and Native American clay pot sherds) and cultural features (hearth and pit f

2,750 square meter (m2

) knoll adjacent and immediately west of Columbia Road within thlimits of the Hanover Marketplace project area. Charcoal collected from two cultural dep

produced Late/Transitional Archaic Period radiocarbon ages of 329080 and 35408present). Archaeological data contained at the Area 1 Site indicated the site was eligible fo

National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and D, and PAL recommended proponents that mitigation alternatives (avoidance, preservation in place, or an archa

recovery program) be considered to minimize the effects construction would have on t

archaeological resource. The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) concurredassessment 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 knothe wetland system associated with Iron Mine Brook (see Figure 1-3). Gentle to moder

located north and east of the knoll top, while sleep slopes are located to the soArchaeological site examination resulted in the recovery of 41 pieces of chipping d

base/midsection of a stone drill from a 375 m2area. Morphological attributes of the drillmay be a reworked Neville-like projectile point that dates to the Middle Archaic Period (

B.P.). The Area 2 Site yielded few cultural materials and modest archaeological data and w

not to be eligible for listing in the National Register. Consequently, no additional 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 contrib

new information concerning pre-contact Native American settlement and land use within thdrainage area of southeastern Massachusetts. The categories of data recovered from s

preceding intensive and site examination surveys indicated the site was eligible for in

National Register under Criteria A and D: the site is associated with events that have madcontribution to the broad patterns of our history, and that it would be likely to yield informato prehistory or history (NPS National Register Criteria for Evaluation [36 CFR 60]).

A meeting with representatives of the Carpionato Corporation, the MHC, and PAL discussavoiding and mitigating adverse impacts to the Area 1 Site following archaeological site


21/280

under Massachusetts State Archaeologists permit No. 1274 and in accordance with

General Laws, Chapter 9, Section 26C-27C, as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 19(301 CMR 11). Archaeological data recovery involved the excavation and examination

percent of the total site area. Partial excavation is consistent with the MHCs cArchaeological materials and artifacts were returned to PALs laboratory facility in Paw

Island for cleaning, cataloging, and analysis.

Project Personnel

Archaeological site examination and data recovery of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites, Hanovewas overseen by Suzanne Cherau (Principal Investigator) and implemented by William R. B

Archaeologist) and Laurie Pearce and Dana Richardi (Project Assistants). Craig Chartier, William Brett, Richard Savignano, Mark Feibusch, and Chip Mizelle (Archaeologica

assisted in the fieldwork. Donna Raymond (Laboratory Supervisor) directed laboratory

oversaw flotation and the floral/faunal analyses. Lithic analysis was conducted by DanielWillan, and William R. Begley under the supervision of Duncan Ritchie (Senior Archaeolmaterials were cataloged by Monika Bolino and William R. Begley. University of Rhode I

O. Donald Hermes and Duncan Ritchie conducted petrological and X-ray Fluorescence (

lithic materials recovered at the Area 1 Site. Dana Richardi prepared the graphics presented

Disposition of Project Data

All project information (i.e., field recording forms, maps, cultural materials, photographs)

file at PAL, 26 Main Street, Pawtucket, Rhode Island. PAL serves as a temporary curatio

such time as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts designates a permanent sta


22/280

CHAPTER TWO

RESEARCH DESIGN

Collection of archaeological data is guided by theoretical frameworks that define the kindrecovered, enable the appropriate formulation of research questions, and specify which vnatural and social environment have the greatest explanatory value for furthering an un

events or larger-scale processes of the past. The archaeological record of any site is

complex interplay between human behaviors, which resulted in the intentional/unintentioartifacts in archaeological contexts, and post-depositional natural processes such as e

activity, and freeze/thaw cycles that act upon the distributions of discarded cultural maarchaeological record of a site. It is expected that systematic excavation of sites, the recovand the interpretation of the recovered materials based on their spatial arrangements c

illuminate and illustrate past human behaviors. Archaeological studies at the Area 1 an

proceeded under the assumption that the material record of the sites and the distributio

material remains recovered from them resulted from human behaviors that were patterned

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 site

the National Register of Historic Places. This determination is assisted by collecting infsites boundaries, physical integrity, density, structure, complexity, and age and the abilit

produce information useful for answering archaeological research questions of regiona

historical importance and to place the site in relation to other Native American sites in the a

Site examination within the Hanover Marketplace was designed to address four aspects of

1 and Area 2 sites. The research design focused on assessing the physical attributes content, integrity, function, etc.) of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites and understanding them witof local and regional land use models and assess their ability to provide new insights in

Native American occupation in southeastern Massachusetts. Specific goals and question

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 con

Native American cultural materials within the southeastern (Area 1) and northwestern (Are

the development. The integrity of cultural deposits recovered from each of these knolls appneither of the knolls appears to have been historically plowed. The majority (64 perc

A i l l i l d b 0 d 25 i ( ) b l h


23/280

R

demonstrated that the Area 1 Site continued south of the knoll (Figure 2-1). Several sizab

along with associated earth piles were present at the southwestern corner of the site. Thewhich the Area 1 Site was located evidently extended to the northeast prior to being

truncated by the construction of Columbia Road (Route 53). Presently, the northeastern sicharacterized by an extremely steep slope downward to Columbia Road. Area 2 Site bo

defined by sterile test pits excavated at a 5m interval around intensive pits that produced Ncultural materials (Figure 2-2). The west side of the Area 2 Site is heavily eroded and has

by gravel mining and grading associated with the construction of the recycling facility to th

2-1).

In additional to determining site boundaries, test pit excavation also assisted with assessing

identifying artifact concentrations, and evaluating whether the sites were structurally simconcentration areas) or indicated a more complex set of activities (e.g., resource acquisit

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 un

the goals of the site examination was recover temporally or culturally diagnostic cultural mlocate carbon-bearing features that would permit radiocarbon dating and assessment of the

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 durinsurvey indicated the majority of the lithic materials used in the manufacture of chipped-st

readily derived from the nearby area. Few pieces of non-locally available chert were also rthe Area 1 Site. It was the expectation that additional cores or other lithic artifacts recove

site examination would provide information on raw material source area and whether these initially extracted from nearby bedrock outcrops and transported to the sites as quarry blank

derived from local tills served as sources of stone used in chipped stone tool manufacture. I

that presumed that the parent material for lithic artifacts recovered from the sites could through comparisons of the Area 1 and Area 2 site assemblages with volcanic materials knoin eastern Massachusetts (i.e. Boston basin, Blue Hills, Lynn, Mattapan, or Attleboro).

would provide information necessary to understanding the social processes of trade and expre-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

the large North River drainage area. A large scale survey within the adjacent Taunton basin demonstrated that numerous Native American archaeological sites dating from abou

about 500 B.P. tend to be located in proximity to wetlands (Thorbahn 1982). For example, o


24/280

Chapter Two

Archaeological site examination of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites was expected to locate cult

features, and material evidence for the types of resources being exploited in this wetlancombination of temporal and subsistence data would contribute information on changing la

around freshwater swamps and perhaps provide some insight into what resources were beinfor what purposes.

Data Recovery Program

Following the archaeological site examination, the Area 1 Site was determined eligible f

the National Register. Construction impacts to the Area 1 Site could not be avoided and an data recovery program was developed to mitigate the adverse effects project construction

the site. Dr. Dena Dincauze has stated (1980:31) that the first priority for research in thproblem definition, followed by selecting the means and developing a research desig

address these problems, and finally implementing the appropriate data recovery strategies

data. This outline remains the basic approach to archaeological inquiry in the region.

Archaeological data recovery is the systematic removal of the scientific, prehistoric, h

archaeological data that provides an historic property with its research or data value (36 C

the process of carrying out a data recovery program, archaeological sites are excavated, data are collected and analyzed and the important information is disseminated. Because ele

are destroyed through the course of archaeological investigation, the data recovery methodologies that would manage anticipated discoveries and provided for the processing cultural materials after their removal from their environmental and cultural contexts. Cultur

well as field notes, drawings, photographs, and other records generated by the

investigation were properly stored to prevent loss of information. Specific field and resewere used to carry out the recovery of significant data and to analyze and synthesize the res

Research Orientation and Questions

The research questions developed for the site examination presented above focused on

internal site structure and configuration of the Area 1 and Area 2 sites and beg

archaeological themes of local and regional import. The Area 1 Site was determined to havto contribute significant new information concerning pre-contact Native American settleuse within the North River drainage area of southeastern Massachusetts.

The research design formulated for the Area 1 Site data recovery program evolved from

developed for the site examination. Issued addressed by the data recovery program focus

patterns of Native American land use, resource acquisition, wetland exploitation, and thancient Native American territories within the combined Indian Head River/North River/

watershed of southeastern Massachusetts especially for the Late/Transitional Archaic Period

Research Topic 1: Late Archaic Period Use of the Area 1 Site


25/280

Figure 2-1. Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 1 Site.


26/280

R

Ch T


27/280

Chapter Two

The fourth millennium B.P. has long been recognized as a period of environmenta

(Dincauze 1974, 1975). The Holocene environment contained supported a variable and resource base (small- to medium-sized mammals, reptiles, flora, hard nut species, etc.

exploitation. By the Middle Archaic Period (ca. 7500 to 5000) group territory size had bwith regional Native American territories beginning to be established (Dincauze 1976, 1980

reduction of territorial range and the circumscription of populations with defined territobeen partly responsible for the increased re-use of certain productive environmental areas.

logistical organization of social groups may also have been partly responsible for the re

those areas having the greatest environmental productivity and the increased visibility of sites (Thorbahn 1982).

Peter Thorbahns (1982) work along the I-495 roadway corridor in the Taunton Rivesoutheastern Massachusetts has demonstrated that river margins and large wetlands we

repeated settlement during the Late/Transitional Archaic period (ca. 5000 to 2500 B.P.) resconcentrations of cultural materials and features. Archaeological study of the Bay Street I s

indicated the site was intensively occupied between 4300 and 3200 years ago. Here, Sprojectile points were recovered along with Vinette 1-type ceramics in a feature radioc

3715180 B.P. (Cox 1982). Archaeological investigations at the nearby Canoe River West

unearthed a series of large burnt rock pavements or platforms used in resource processing wTransitional Archaic Orient Fishtail and other Susquehanna Tradition artifacts (Simon 19

large, complex pits and hearth features at the Newcombe Street Site suggested severreoccupation dating to the Late Archaic (Thorbahn 1982). Stemmed Tradition occupationfrequently archaeological component on similar riverine and wetland setting campsites in

the surrounding area. This is evident at such sites as Site 19-PL-549 located on the souIndian Head River, and Site 19-PL-512 located along the North River in Norwell. Simi

Late/Transitional Archaic resource acquisition and camping along river and wetland margfrom other drainages in eastern Massachusetts.

The Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace, is located on a broad knoll originally bordered by and wetlands associated with Third Herring Brook to the east, Iron Mine Brook to the westthat form the headwaters of these streams to the north. Given the environmental situation an

the Area 1 Site, patterns of Late/Transitional Archaic Period land use and settlement outlin

expected to be contained at the site. This position was partially supported by categories offrom the site during the preceding intensive and site examination archaeological surveys

Stemmed and Squibnocket Stemmed projectile points and radiocarbon ages of 329080 andfrom charcoal indicated the Area 1 Site contained a significant Late Archaic Small Stradition occupation. An absence of Laurentian Tradition artifacts (i.e. Brewerton, Vosburg

suggested the Area 1 Site was not occupied much before 4000 years ago. Chipped stone waste, lithic tools (projectiles and net weight/sinker), faunal remains, burnt rock platform, asuggested the occupants of the site engaged in various activities focused on the acquisition of terrestrial and riverine resources.

One hope of the data recovery program was to identify the full range and complexity of hu

R


28/280

R

B.P. at the Bay Street I Site (see Cox 1982) necessitates the need to critically evaluate

assumption concerning the beginnings of ceramic production in the Northeast. The Area assemblage following the site examination was interpreted as representing either early cera

and pottery use at the site dating to the Late Archaic Period or represented evidence occupation of the site dating to the Woodland Period.

Specific research questions posited for the archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site a

Research Topic 1 included:

Was the Area 1 Site recurrently used during the Late Archaic Period like other site

Taunton drainage basin of southeastern Massachusetts?

Does this occupational/depositional sequence conform to the general patterns oArchaic settlement and resource acquisition in the North River Area (e.g. freq

riverine/wetland site locations)?

Is it possible to reconcile the age of the Native American pottery recovered from the

Research Topic 2: Transition from Archaic to Woodland Period at the Area 1 Si

Quartz was frequently used to manufacture Late Archaic Small Stemmed Tradition anComplex projectile points in southern New England (see Ritchie 1969, 1971). Dr. Kevi

(1984) argued for the lower Connecticut River Valley of Connecticut that the Small StemmPoint Tradition employed an efficient quartz cobble stone tool manufacturing technology. AStemmed and two quartz Squibnocket Stemmed projectile points and an associated high de

debitage was recovered from the northeast section of the Area 1 Site during the archexamination. These projectile points, in addition to the two radiocarbon dates of 3290354080 B.P. from the site during the site examination suggested that the Area 1 S

intensively occurred during the Late Archaic Period. The recovery of two Native Ame

sherds, one of which was recovered in associated with the burnt rock platform Feature

however that the site may once again have been occupied during the Early or Middle Wood

The recovery and identification of Late Archaic and suspected Early Woodland Period cu

and features at the Area 2 Site suggested a possibility for studying the Archaic to WoodlaMassachusetts. The nature of Native American land use and settlement evidently be

following the adoption of ceramic technology approximately 3000 years ago (Ritchie 1980Early Woodland Period occupations, however, are generally underrepresented in archaeological record. An apparent underrepresentation of Early Woodland sites in

archaeological database may stem from a difficulty in determining what constitutes diag

assemblages for the period (Juli and McBride 1984). The recovery of ceramic sherds and as well as, the identification of a burnt rock platform, fire pit, and possible living floor wit

section of the northeast site area suggested a possibility that additional cultural deposits usetechnology and subsistence strategies dating to the Archaic/Woodland Period transit

unearthed during the archaeological data recovery program.

Chapter Two


29/280

Chapter Two

Do the observed patterns at the Area 1 Site fit the observed patterns of Native Am

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 aNative American archaeological sites (Hasenstab 1991; Nicholas 1991). Wetlands providand breeding habitat for mammals, reptiles, fish, and fowl and sources of freshwater. N

identifies five reasons that explain the correlation between wetland resources and archselection in the Northeast:

1) Resource Type: a wide variety of consumable or otherwise useable resources arwetland systems;

2) Seasonality: large, heterogeneous wetland areas on average contain a great

perennially available resources than either lowland riverine or interior upland settin

3) Resource productivity: given wetlands are highly productive ecosystems

comparatively easy access to the resources supported by them;

4) Species diversity: large wetlands contain a wide range of plant and animal specieswetlands tend to be more homogeneous;

5) Resource reliability: wetlands tend to provide consistently reliable and predictable

over time.

The study of the relationship between the Area 1 Site and the surrounding wetland ecpotential to provide new insight into the cognitive choices that went into Native America

during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. Selection of the Area 1 Site forLate/Transitional Archaic peoples likely was correlated with specific wetland habitat fresource type and diversity. Burnt rock platform Feature 02 partially investigated at Area 1

examination was hypothesized to represent an area where fish, meat, and plants procured frIron Mine Brook and associated wetland system were processed. This supposition was brecovery 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 LaArchaic Period similar to those exposed at the Area 1 Site. On such feature was rec

overlying a deep pit at the Riverside 2 site situated along the west bank of the Nemasket2009). The Canoe River West Site contained at least 26 burnt rock platforms in close prox

some of which were superimposed over deep pits. Burnt rock features suggest that high bulikely associated with the natural resources available in the wetland and stream setting, rep

at this location (Simon 1982).

R


30/280

R

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/Transition

Woodland periods wetland exploitation?

Was the Area 2 Site occupied year-round or only seasonally with occupations sch

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 thi

system compare with those at other similar river/wetland and non-wetland environ

in the region?

Research Topic 4: Relationship of the Area 1 Site to Late Woodland/Contact PeAreas

The Area 1 Site is located along Iron Mine Brook near where the Herring River meets b

Head (southwest) and North (northeast) rivers. Access to the Area 1 Site from the North Ri

have been possible via Third Herring Brook. Southeastern Massachusetts river systems proavenues for Native American transportation in addition to sponsoring a wide range of pla

species readily available for exploitation by the regions indigenous peoples. The coHead/Herring/North River system and its tributaries likely provided the occupants of the A

access to larger settlement areas located within the mosaic of ponds in present-day Pembrok

The North River and its tributaries flow generally northeast to empty into Massachuse

Scituate-Marshfield boundary. These rivers and streams likely facilitated transportationregions interior (Pembroke Ponds Complex) and the coastal zone located in the North Rarea. The Pembroke Ponds were a focus of Massachusett Indian settlement and subsistenc

seventeenth century core with a major native settlement at Mattakeeset. A coastal core oIndians, which extended from the North River south to Plymouth Bay, included a majo

Patuxet (MHC 1982). Hanover and the Area 1 Site appear to have been peripheral to thcoastal core settlement areas around 400 years ago. On the contrary, the upper North Rive

Hanover area was included within an area of intense Native American land usLate/Transitional Archaic Periods. The database of known archaeological sites however, su

decline in occupation and resource use of interior wetland and river settings during the la

and Contact periods. An apparent shift away from interior systems may be tied to a combinsuch as increased settlement focused on the coastal and reliance on coastal resources sucfinfish, and marine mammals, other changes in subsistence strategies (introduction of ho

changes in socio-political and community structure.

Archaeological data recovery at the Area 1 Site was presumed to assist with understan

cultural position of Hanover during the Late Archaic, Woodland, and perhaps Contaexamining the sites age(s), material and feature content, and their densities, patterns of Nasettlement and resource exploitation and an assessment of the sites situation with a

i h l t it f th i d b t 4000 d 300 i ht b b tt d

Chapter Two


31/280

Chapter Two

Does this orientation extend backwards in time to the Late and Transitional Archaic

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

most of which was located within the northeastern limits of the site. Lithic materials recovsite included chipped and ground stone tools (projectile points, scrapers, drills, net sinwhetstone), hammerstones or cores, and chipped stone tool manufacturing waste. L

recovered from the site included volcanics (rhyolites and felsites), quartz, argillite, hornfand quartzite. Volcanics dominate the Area 1 lithic assemblage. Area 1 Site volcanic mat

Hingham red, Sally Rock, Saugus jasper, Mattapan, and Attleboro red varieties. Lithic

macroscopically identical to parent materials that outcrop at the Mattapan Volcanic aIgneous complex of the Boston Basin and the Lynn Volcanic Complex north of Boston in Northshore area.

Quartz was the second most frequent lithic material recovered from the Area 1 Site accpercent of the lithic assemblage. Quartz is locally available and occurs as glacially depcobbles and in veins of bedrock outcrops. Argillite, which constituted only a minor portion

lithic assemblage at 5 percent, is regionally available from the Boston Basin. The Small S

tradition in southern New England targeted quartz, and to a lesser extent argillite, for

chipped stone tools in southern New England. Small Stemmed and Squibnocket Stempoints from the Area 1 Site were all manufactured of quartz consistent with the pattern omaterial preference for the Late Archaic Small Stemmed Tradition.

Archaeological data recovery of the Area 1 Site was designed to examine patterns of

preference and use. Examination of stone tools and chipping debris from the site wodetermination if a distinct sequence of manufacturing steps in the biface reduction processat the site. The stone tools, characteristics of the debitage assemblage (e.g. a preponderance

medium-sized flakes over larger flakes and very little blocky shatter), and an absence ofvolcanic cores and fragments, suggested that only secondary and tertiary lithic redumaterials occurred at the site. These data imply that volcanic materials were transported t

their source areas as blanks, rough bifaces, or preforms, which were later shaped into fperhaps were gathered as beach or glacial cobbles. The presence of numerous, large quabundance of shatter, the recovery of spent quartz cores, as well as, small- to medium-size

on the contrary is indicative of an entirely different pattern by which quartz was utilized

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 comof quartz tool manufacture was unique to the Late or Transitional Archaic occupants of

whether volcanic materials were being used by earlier or later occupants and how these being brought to the site, used, and subsequently discarded. Such information might prov

the complexity of the lithic technologies and how they might relate to the socioeconomic othose who used them An examination of the recovered debitage assemblage along with ge

R


32/280

What lithic materials are associated with the various archaeological components to t

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 thRiver drainage?


33/280

CHAPTER THREE

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Environmental features were important variables influencing pre-contact Native Americontact period settlement, subsistence strategies, and resources exploitation. Naturalresources such as bedrock geology, soil drainage, vegetation, and location relative to m

systems and coastal bodies all affected past settlement location, type, and density, a

frequency of resettlement within any given area. Specific environments contained sets natural resources, while the cultural and technological subsystems determined which of t

peoples could or would exploit. Knowledge of environmental data contributes to a clearerof what natural resources were available to human groups and what Hanovers environmthe past.

The Hanover Marketplace project area is located in Plymouth County near the headwat

Mine Brook approximately one mile west of the confluence of Third Herring Brook and thand one mile north of the confluence of IronMine Brook and the Indian Head River.

Southeastern Massachusetts interior rivervalleys and wetland systems supported a rich,

varied, and reliable riverine, wetland, andwoodland floral and faunal resource base thatwas periodically exploited and targeted by the

regions indigenous peoples and by later

European settlers.

Current Environmental Setting

The Hanover Marketplace is situated withineastern Hanover in northern Plymouth County,

Massachusetts. This part of Plymouth County

and southeastern Massachusetts is situatedwithin the larger Seaboard Lowland

physiographic province of southern New

England (Figure 3-1). The 15.4-acre HanoverMarketplace project area contains extremely

diverse terrain that includes wetlands associated

with Iron Mine Brook in its central portion, awooded knoll in the south-central area, two

ll k ll h h d l i d d

Physica


34/280

wooded knoll that rises roughly 60 to 90 feet (ft) above sea level. The knoll severely slo

toward Iron Mine Brook to the west. Columbia Road forms the current eastern limits of Area 2 Site was located within the northwestern portion of Hanover Marketplace project ar

Site occupied a wooded T-shaped knoll north of Iron Mine Brook. This knoll is bordereslopes on the north and east and steep slopes to south and west. Area 2 Site elevations ran

100 ft above sea level.

Bedrock Geology

Knowledge of the underlying bedrock and regional stone outcrops is important in evaluatincontact Native American population movements and/or evaluating the extent of previously

and exchange networks at Native American archaeological sites manifest by the physical retools and their waste products, since stone and boulder outcrops, as well as cobbles in th

were periodically exploited for use in stone tool manufacture.

Hanover is located within the northeastern limits of the Narragansett Basin, a broad dextends southerly along the coast of Rhode Island to Newport Bay. The Narragansett Bas

of glacially deposited sediments overlying a primarily a granitic rock base. Bedrock underly

characterized by a narrow band of upper to middle Pennsylvanian age sandstone, greywaconglomerate known as the Rhode Island Formation (Zen et al. 1983). Proterozoic Z Age D

and granite, gneiss, and schist are situated immediately north and south of central HanGranite is described as a grayish pink to greenish gray equigranular to slightly porphyritic al. 1983).

Lithic materials preferred by the southeastern Massachusetts Indian peoples for use in the mchipped-stone tools included quartz, quartzites, fine-grained volcanic rhyolites or argillaceous mudstones and slates. Felsites/rhyolites were acquired either regionally from

the well-known lithic source outcrops located in the Blue Hills area (Mattapan Square, Sall

Wampatuck Hill, Clarendon Hill), the Hale Reservation in the Town of Westwood, or frothe Boston Basin, from the Wamsutta source area of Attleboro, or from the Lynn-Mattapan

of the North Shore (Marblehead) area of Massachusetts. Various lithic material typesoccurred in geologic outcrops or were present in cobble form in the glacial drift, were also streambeds, from the nearby coastal margins, or perhaps were easily acquired by travel to

these known source areas.

Soils

Glacial advance during the last glacial episode flowed generally southward in three loChannel Lobe to the east, the Cape Cod Bay Lobe in the middle, and the Buzzards Bay L

(Figure 3-2). The ice front had major standstills, as evidenced by the two end moraines

southeastern Massachusetts; one formed Nantucket Island and Marthas Vineyard and

Woods Hole area of Cape Cod. Several recessional moraines are present with the BuzSandwich examples, the one through which the transmission line traverses being the mo

Chapter Three


35/280

loamy sands. These soils are excessively

drained and occur primarily on terraceescarpments, eskers, and some kames

(USDA 1969). Slope and droughtinessseverely limit the use of this soil for crops

or pasture and for most non-farmpurposes. The most practical use for this

soil is woodland (USDA 1969).

Drainage Patterns

The Town of Hanover lies within theNorth River drainage of northeastern

Plymouth County. The North River and its

tributary streams flow in a generalnortheasterly direction and empty intoMassachusetts Bay at the Scituate-

Marshfield boundary. This drainage is the

major river system of northeasternPlymouth County and includes parts of

Scituate, Marshfield, Norwell, Pembroke,Duxbury, Rockland, Halifax, Hanson, andHanover. Local drainage is afforded by

Iron Mine Brook and its associated

wetlands. Iron Mine Brook is locatedroughly 120 m west of the Area 1 Site.From here, the brook flows generally

southward to empty into the Indian Head River at Curtis Crossing. The Indian Head Ri

eastward where it is joined by the Herring River just under a mile and a half southeast oMarketplace. The confluence of these rivers comprises a vast freshwater wetland. The c

system then turns north and meets the Third Herring Brook at the Hanover/Norwell town the North River. The North River then meanders its way north and east for roughly five anto Massachusetts Bay at the Scituate and Marshfield town boundary. The combined river

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 aet al. 2000; Sneddon 1987) and central (Newby 2000, Sneddon and Kaplan 1987) Mass

been used to reconstruct Holocene period vegetation and forest type succession through t

cores from the Makepeace Cedar Swamp in northeastern Carver, Plymouth County (New

and Black Pond in (Sneddon 1987) suggest a vegetative sequence that conforms to broforest type succession known from southern New England.

Figure 3-2. Late Pleistocene glacial

southeastern Massachusetts.

Physica


36/280

results with an open spruce woodland with pine (jack or red), fir, larch, and green alder in t

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 larch, and alder boreal forest and an increase in birch with birch pollen reaching its ma

10,500 B.P. at Black Pond. Between roughly 9,800 and 8,200 years ago, the spruce woobeen replaced by a forest dominated by pine (Newby et al. 1986; Newby et al. 2000). A ra

of 8930 90 B.P. from Houghtons Pond core HP-2 clearly demonstrates when this pine-b

was extant in eastern Massachusetts (Newby et al. 1986). This mixed coniferous/deciduwas part of a large-scale shift to a closed forest environment across the southern New E

The Makepeace pollen cores suggest a period of dry climatic conditions (ca. 9700 years B

transition from spruce to pine dominant woodland (Newby et al. 2000). This event has alsoobserved from Northborough and Marlborough (Newby 2000) and from the Pequot Ce

Ledyard, Connecticut (McWeeney 1999).

After approximately 8,350 years ago from Makepeace Cedar Swamp and approximately 8from Houghtons Pond, oak replaces pine as the dominant pollen reflecting an increase in i

the regional forests (Newby et al. 1986; Newby et al. 2000). At this time, oak pollen in

percent in a sediment core from Houghtons Pond. Following 8,000 years ago, oak persistto this day as the largest constituents of southern New Englands hardwood forests, althou

have been a substantial component, as well, between 8,000 and 4,800 years ago iMassachusetts (Gaudreau and Webb 1985; Newby et al. 1987).

By about 5,000 years ago, hickory occurs as an element of the regional deciduous foreincluded lesser amounts of pine, birch, maple, elm and ash. Palynological research in Ply

Massachusetts suggest that drier climatic conditions ca. 5,300 to 3,000 years ago may hahemlock trees in regional forests, making them more vulnerable to insects and/or disea

Filion 1996; Newby 2000; Newby et al. 2000; Yu et al. 1997). The hemlock decrease con

3,000 B.P., but was gradual and likely was not noticeable to people who occupied the lands

Forest vegetation across the southeastern New England region between approximately 4,

years ago was marked by maximum species diversity. Oak was the dominant species

hickory, beech, yellow birch, elm, maple, sycamore and pine. Similar pollens of the samwere also recovered from the Salem Neck Sewage Plant from Salem (Kelso et al. 2000).

toward cooler climatic conditions is reflected in the palynological record between 3,500 aago by an increase in the frequency of spruce pollen and slight decrease in the relative fre

pollen. The Makepeace Cedar Swamp and the Houghtons Pond cores demonstrate a period

climatic conditions and rising water levels after 3,000 years ago (Newby et al. 1986; NewbHickory and chestnut became more common as components of the forest vegetation in England. The prevalent southeastern Massachusetts forest by ca. 1000 years ago included atype with secondary hickory, hemlock, beech, birch, pine, and maple (Newby et al. 1986).

Vegetation Types

Chapter Three


37/280

3300 B.P. The white cedar-dominated swamp began to develop with the arrival of this sp

2500 B.P. The encroachment of the bog mat over the deeper portion of the pond preventedrooted aquatics in recent centuries. At the regional scale, evidence of eutrophication (a

ponds and changes in wetland structure (bog formation) and vegetation have been noted incores taken from different locations in southeastern New England (Nelson 1984). The Ced

in the upper Sudbury River drainage, for example, contained evidence of eutrophicationattributed to the decline in hemlock and an increase in nutrient rich run-off from the decidu

occupation of upland areas adjacent to wetlands and ponds by prehistoric hunter/gatherer g

been suggested as a possible source of nutrients responsible for eutrophication (Sneddo1987). Spruce increased in frequency and moved further south at higher altitudes in both th

southern New England forests as a result of a shift to cooler, moist climatic conditions ac

Northeast after about 4000 B.P.

Syntheses of palynological and archaeological data from southeastern Massachusetts andhave suggested that changes in wetlands (size, structure, vegetation types) due to eutroph

climatic cooling trend were factors influencing prehistoric settlement and resource use (B1982; Thorbahn 1982; Cox et al. 1983; Simon 1991; Nicholas 1991). Another factor pos

the size of ponds and wetlands and the vegetation communities associated with them was

local dry phase observed in pollen cores taken from Titicut Swamp in the Taunton Basin oMassachusetts. The overly dry climatic conditions took place between 4200 and 3150 B.P.,

affected prehistoric settlement and resource (Bradshaw et al. 1982; Nelson 1984). Pollen cothe greater eastern Massachusetts region, including Cape Cod, did not show evidence oduring this period (Winkler 1985; Newby et al. 1987; Sneddon and Kaplan 1987; Snedd

cause, therefore, for the very localized dry conditions observed in southeast Massachusettsmore likely related to geomorphological rather than climatic changes (Kelso, personal com

Simon 1991). There is no evidence to date of a similar dry period elsewhere in eastern Masin particular in the upper North River drainage.

Some indications of forest clearance or alteration around 1000 B.P. have been obsediagrams from wetlands in southern Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. A signin herbaceous plant pollen (Ambrosia, Tubuliflorae, etc.) at that time suggests that there we

the forest vegetation cover which provided suitable habitat for these weedy plants (B

During the late prehistoric period, forests in eastern and southeastern Massachusetts consichestnut type with hemlock, hickory, beech, birch, pine, and maple.

Pollen cores taken from wetlands and ponds in southeastern New England clearly showearly historic period forest clearance within the last 300 years. Decreases in tree pollen a

strong increases in pollen from weedy plants such as sheep sollel (Rumex), plantain (Plan(Ambrosia), and grass (Graminae). Some trees common as early successional stage tygrowth forests such as red cedar, birch, and white pine became dominant in abandoned faret al. 1987; Nelson 1984) or "old field" situations (Braun 1950).


38/280

CHAPT

NATIVE AMERICAN LAND USE AND SETT

Professional and avocational archaeological surveys have documented nearly an 11sequence of human occupation in southeastern Massachusetts. The following chapter scurrent body of Native American settlement data in the Nemasket area from the earliest pe

archaeological remains have been documented in the area to approximately King Philip

1676). The pre-contact Native American history of Massachusetts is divided into three majPaleoIndian, Archaic, and Woodland (Table 4-1). The patterns associated with cultural

periods for southern New England are presented sequentially. Each of these periods is distthe basis of material culture, specific patterns of land use, and occasionally by other indmortuary practices or traditions. The cultural and temporal groupings listed below are inten

a generalized organizational framework only.

PaleoIndian Period (13,00010,000 B.P.1)

Southern New England was populated by bands of mobile hunters and foragers collectively

PaleoIndians following the retreat of glacial ice between 21,000 and 16,000 years agounequivocal evidence for human occupation in New England is associated with the Clovis dates to as early as 11,120 180 radiocarbon years B.P. at the Vail Site in Maine (Gram

timing of the initial population of the Eastern Seaboard is presently debated by archaeolog

the discovery of cultural strata and artifacts in South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, andwhich apparently predate the PaleoIndian Clovis Culture or fluted point tradition. Thsubsequent retreat of thick glacial ice across southern New England ca. 15,000 to 16,00

often assumed to have erased any evidence for pre-Clovis occupation of the region, andClovis finds are known from New England.

Traditional interpretations of PaleoIndian settlement and subsistence systems are that mexploited large migratory game such as mastodon, caribou, bison, or elk (Dragoo 1976; K1988; Snow 1980; Waguespack and Surovell 2003). PaleoIndian subsistence data from the

Maritimes (Meltzer and Smith 1986; Spiess et al. 1998) and the Great Lakes (Stothers

indicate PaleoIndians exploited large migratory game, namely caribou. Nevertheless, the rof migratory or megafaunal (i.e., mammoth and mastadon) animal remains from

archaeological contexts in southern New England has caused some to question thsubsistence model in the region (Dincauze 1993; Ogden 1977). Dincauze (1990) argue

New England PaleoIndians were more generalized in their subsistence regimes, hunting

opportunistically available animal and plant species. Jones and Forrest (2003) concur ar

higher abundance of small PaleoIndian encampments relative to larger base camps in the

Chapter Four


39/280

Native American Land Use


40/280

available for human consumption. Following the thinking of Jones and Forrest, smaller

have been better equipped to exploit available resources in southern New England than larg

Cultural materials diagnostic of PaleoIndian occupation include fluted Clovis-like (Bull Bror Nicholas type) and Eden-like projectile points. Other stone tools associated with this

scraping tools, gravers, and drills and channel flutes. PaleoIndian tools recovered from England typically include non-local (chert and jasper) lithic materials and extra-region

rhyolites.

Documented PaleoIndian materials are quite rare and suggest that PaleoIndian sett

exploitation was focused along interior postglacial wetlands, glacial lakes, and riverine set

Brook Site in Ipswich covered several acres and yielded thousands of artifacts that inclufluted points, scrapers, and assorted stone tools (Byers 1954; Grimes 1980; Grimes et al.

of the Wapanucket Site (19-PL-203) in Middleborough produced one of the most significaPeriod deposits known from southeastern Massachusetts. Located on the north side of

Pond, Locus 8 of the Wapanucket Site yielded an assemblage of PaleoIndian fluted prgravers, scrapers, and channel flakes, as well as debitage of chert and rhyolite from a highly

(Bradley and Boudreau 2006). The site is interpreted as a temporary campsite situated atop

sand dune located 8.5 m or 28 ft above the current lake level (Robbins 1980:305306Agogino 1964). Site 19-PL-348, located on a bluff overlooking the North River and i

Marshfield, also yielded a suspected late PaleoIndian Plano assemblage (MHC site files).

The Archaic Period (10,0003000 B.P.)

The Archaic Period represented a time of increased familiarization and settlement withiNew England woodlands. The Archaic has been subdivided into Early, Middle, andPaleoenvironmental and archaeological evidence argues in favor of increased diversifi

resources, the generalized exploitation of faunal and floral species, and the establish

territories throughout the Archaic Period. In general, Archaic Period peoples are conceptuaa primarily hunting and gathering subsistence economy with a settlement pattern ch

wandering or seasonal relocations within circumscribed territories (Dincauze 1975).

Early Archaic Period (10,0007500 B.P.)

The Early Archaic Period coincided with the commencement of the Holocene epoch, caago. The early Holocene was marked by warmer and drier conditions than the precedi

epoch. Early Archaic peoples continued to generalize in their subsistence base, hunting a

and harvesting woodland and wetland vegetation and nuts (Dumont 1981; Meltzer anNicholas 1987). Identifying Early Archaic archaeological deposits in southern New

Massachusetts has typically relied on the recovery of bifurcate-based lithic pro

Concentrations of Early Archaic bifurcate-based projectiles have been identified around the

ponds, marshes, and wooded wetlands and at the headwaters of major rivers inMassachusetts (Taylor 1976). Bifurcate-based projectile points from the Taunton River dra

Chapter Four


41/280

Bifurcate complex at the Weilnau Site in Ohio (Stothers 1996) and more recently the identi

pit houses dated to 7830 130 and 8110 90 at the Whortleberry Site in Dracut, Massac2005) may imply a previously unknown degree of sedentism for the Early Archaic bifurca

portions of the Northeast and Great Lakes.

Early Archaic sites and materials have been recovered from around the perimeters of pondwooded wetlands at the headwaters of major rivers. Few Early Archaic archaeological site

are known from the North River Drainage, though many more are known from the

Drainage of Plymouth County. Diagnostic bifurcate-based projectile points have been recsignificant number of large multicomponent archaeological sites along a 24-km (15-mile

Taunton River in Middleborough and Bridgewater leading some to speculate a territorial c

this area during the Early to Middle Archaic Period (Dincauze and Mulholland 197bifurcate-based projectile points have been recovered from the Titicut (19-PL-161) and Se

PL-162) sites located in close proximity to one another on either side of the banks of the TaBridgewater (Taylor 1970, 1976), the Double P Site (19-PL-343) also in Bridgewater (M

Riverside 3 and Bridge Street II sites within the Riverside Park Archaeological Distric(Begley and Davin 1996; Raber et al. 1991), the Fort Hill Site in North Middleboro (Taylor

as, at the Wapanucket (Robbins 1980). The Nessrallas Nursery Site (19-PL-372), located

the southern end of Monponsett Pond in Halifax, was identified from Bifurcate-based pfrom the Nessralls Nursery Site (19-PL-372) in Halifax represents the earliest evide

American activity at Monponsett Pond (MHC site files; Mahlstedt 1985).

Middle Archaic Period (75005000 B.P.)

An increased visibility of Middle Archaic sites in southern New England suggests that colowere firmly established in the region by 7500 B.P. with resident populations continuing ttheir subsistence regimes. Middle Archaic sites are common around waterfalls, river rapi

drainages, wetlands, and coastal settings (Bunker 1992; Dincauze 1976; Doucette an

Maymon and Bolian 1992) with large base camps established along extensive wetland systand Cross 1997). Smaller logistical camps and exploitation sites supplemented the

Subsistence activities reflected at these sites included the harvesting of anadromous fisforaging, and fishing and shellfish collection. An increase in the complexity of seasoconjectured based on the broad range of resources available throughout the period (McBrid

Southern New England Middle Archaic occupations are typically identifiable by the presenNeville-variant, Stark, and Merrimack style projectile points (Dincauze 1976; Dincauze a1977). Adzes, gouges, and axes suggest heavy woodworking and possibly the appeara

canoes. A preference for regionally available lithic raw materials (quartzite and rhyoliamounts of locally available materials is reflected in the site database. The correlation belithic material types and Middle Archaic materials has led Dincauze (1976) to theori

American band or tribal territories were established within major river drainages, and that of subsistence activities such as the seasonal pursuit of anadromous fish species may havresponse to territoriality (Dincauze and Mulholland 1977). The location of many o



42/280

South Halifax, and the Bartlett Brook Site (19-PL-413) located along a small tributary of t

River. The recovery of Middle Archaic tools throughout the region is consistent with small limited focus representative of short-duration task-oriented locations associated with the a

limited processing of game resources supported by the larger base-camps that were settperiods of time.

Late Archaic Period (50003000 B.P.)

Late Archaic Period archaeological sites are well represented in southeastern Massachuset

of Late Archaic deposits and an associated reliance on locally available lithic materials (quand argillite) is suggestive of increased Native American residency for the period (Di

Seasonal and multioccupation Late Archaic campsites were associated with procurem

resources. Shellfish exploitation, first observed during the Middle Archaic, intensified coastal inundation decreased and estuaries, salt marshes, and tidal mud flats were esta

1974; Lavin 1988). The overlapping mosaic of archaeological sites created during generatioattest to intensive utilization of the Northeasts swamps and wetlands and occupation waterways beginning approximately 4,200 years ago. The high density of Late Archaic

range of habitats that includes edges of streams, bogs, and kettle hole swamps, coupled

number of artifacts attributed to the period, is suggestive of a large population exploitingbroad spectrum of resources (Dincauze 1975; McBride 1984; Ritchie 1983).

The Late Archaic Period is defined by three cultural traditions: the Laurentian, Small Susquehanna. Each tradition is associated with specific periods of time, distinct lithic techn

ceremonial or cultural practices that can be discriminated archaeologically. The Laurentian

earliest expression of the Late Archaic in the Northeast. Materials associated with Laurentiinclude woodworking tools (hones and adzes), ground slate points and knives, ulus, simpleand broad-bladed and side-notched Vosburg, Otter Creek, and Brewerton type projectile

1980:79). Lithic materials used in Laurentian tradition tool manufacture include quartzites,

some argillites. Laurentian tradition site distributions imply an interior settlement focus asshunter-gatherer subsistence economy. A focus on the uplands led Ritchie (1980) to suggesinterior riverine adaptation for Laurentian groups.

The Small Stemmed tradition continues as an accepted Late Archaic cultural manifestatio

duration of the tradition appears to extend into the Woodland Period (Mahlstedt 198

Stemmed lithic tradition may be a regional development out of the MiNeville/Stark/Merrimack sequence (Dincauze 1976; McBride 1984). Diagnostic elements the tradition include Squibnocket Stemmed, Wading River, and a host of small or na

projectile points (Dincauze 1975). Small, basally ground Squibnocket triangles contemporaneous with Small Stemmed occupations for southern New England (Ritchie 1archaeological data indicates Small Stemmed producers relied on a quartz tool technol

1984). Quartz cobbles from glacial outwash, riverbeds, or coastal contexts were the sources of raw material for Small Stemmed chipped-stone tools.

Chapter Four


43/280

also in Norwell yielded four Squibnocket Triangles in associated with a quartz and ar

assemblage. Late Archaic components are also present in the Pembroke Ponds complex fro19-PL-446, 19-PL-457, and 19-PL-449.

Transitional/Terminal Archaic Period (36002500 B.P.)

The Transitional Archaic Period bridges the Archaic and Woodland periods and is recogniz

New England by Susquehanna tradition cultural materials and sites. An extensive increased burial ceremonialism, and technologies markedly different from the anteceden

traditions characterized the Transitional Archaic. Radiometric and stratigraphic informatisouthern New England archaeological sites indicate the Susquehanna tradition w

contemporaneous with the Late Archaic Small Stemmed tradition sites (Filios 1989). Th

tradition in southern New England commenced with the Atlantic Phase (ca. 3600 B.P.) awith the Orient Phase (ca. 2600 B.P.) coincident with the beginning of the Early Wo

(Dincauze 1972; Ritchie 1980). The peoples associated with these phases, although difways from one another, shared similar cultural commonalities (lithic technologies, cultand/or settlement and subsistence data) to place them within the collective Susquehanna

tradition.

New technological developments associated with the Susquehanna tradition included the m

steatite vessels and broad-bladed tool forms (Atlantic, Susquehanna Broad, Coburn, and projectile points or knives) that either developed out of the local populations or were intregion by peoples migrating to New England. Steatite bowl use, technology, and trade had

approximately 3,600 years ago following the Atlantic Phase, peaked between 3400 and 2

fell into disuse by the end of the Orient Phase. Regionally available steatite outcrops are kWorcester area, middle Connecticut River valley, and northern Rhode Island. BrSusquehanna tradition bifaces were ideally suited for knives and possibly woodworking im

are in marked contrast to the more linear, elongated, narrow, and thicker piercing Sm

projectiles. Susquehanna tradition chipped-stone tools were commonly manufactured fro

lithic materials that included regionally available rhyolites, quartzite, and non-local cherts.readily available lithic materials such as quartz, argillite, and some rhyolites is apparenOrient Phase of the Susquehanna tradition. The manufacture and use of heavy steatSusquehanna tradition peoples may imply a trend toward increased sedentism by reside

However, the predominance of non-local lithic materials in Susquehanna tradition cultur

implies a relatively mobile settlement strategy.

The Transitional Archaic settlement pattern was essentially oriented toward coastal or ri

with a subsistence base focused on the acquisition of riverine or estuarine flora and faunafish, nuts, and small- to medium-sized mammals (Pagoulatos 1988). Susquehanna tradmarkers of the Transitional Archaic Period and are best known from regional crema

complexes such as the Vincent, Watertown Arsenal, and Millbury III sites in Massachus1968; Leveillee 1995) and the Bliss and Griffin sites in Connecticut (Pfeiffer 1980). mortuary sites, documented Susquehanna tradition occupation sites include moderate-si



44/280

The Woodland Period (3000450 B.P.)

The Woodland Period was a time of dynamic development for southern New Englan

peoples and generally involved a transition from a foraging way of life toward a mexistence. The Woodland Period has traditionally been interpreted as reflecting an abandArchaic subsistence pattern of hunting/gathering/fishing, replacing, or supplementing it wiof horticulture and ceramic technology (Snow 1980). However, the transition from the A

into the Woodland Period does not reflect a strictly linear evolution from one stage to archaeological record supports a continued diversification of food resources, an increas

shellfish and maritime resources, refinement in pottery manufacturing, the maintenance otrade and exchange networks, and eventually year-round coastal or riverine settlement wit

horticulture. Like the Archaic Period, the Woodland Period can be subdivided into Earl

Late periods.

Early Woodland Period (30001600 B.P.)

Early Woodland settlement patterns were characterized by limited use of upland areas and use of coastal and estuarine resources and locales. Nevertheless, bends and confluences ocontinued to support Early Woodland settlement. Coastal habitation sites and shell midden

along the saltwater and estuarine margins of Maine to New York reflect the increasing

shellfish and other marine resources during the Early Woodland Period. Interior site locatioartifacts diagnostic of the Early Woodland Period are not as numerous as the preceding per

be related to the problem of determining what constitutes diagnostic artifact assemblages fo

Early Woodland archaeological deposits have traditionally been diagnosed through thMeadowood, Lagoon, and Rossville type projectile points, as well as grit-tempered, cord-m

I ceramic styles in the absence of radiocarbon assays. Early Woodland Period occupationsgenerally underrepresented in the regional archaeological record. This has led to speculawas a population decline for the period (Dincauze 1974; Lavin 1988). Conversely, others

apparent underrepresentation of Early Woodland sites may stem from the difficulty in deconstitutes diagnostic artifact assemblages for the period (Juli and McBride 1984).

association of some Small Stemmed projectile points with Early Woodland radiocarbon that some Early Woodland assemblages are being misidentified as older Late Archaic mater

Patterns of Early Woodland settlement and resource collection in the North River drainagdocumented and are poorly understood as most of the sites in the region occur in coast

zones with lesser numbers on major rivers and lakes. Early Woodland Rossville projectile p

19-PL-348 were observed in the Seamans artifact collection. Both the Halifax Springs Street sites within the Pembroke Ponds complex contained Meadowood and Rossville

points.

Middle Woodland Period (16001000 B.P.)

Chapter Four


45/280

subsistence patterns of Archaic Period hunters and gatherers (Snow 1980). Consequently, h

been assumed to have had important impacts on the later Native American subsistence base for southern New England, as it was widely believed that it initially suppleme

supplanted a pre-existing focus on hunting and gathering subsistence strategies sometiMiddle Woodland Period. However, the earliest evidence of domesticated agricultural p

region dates to around A.D. 1000, coincident with the end of the period suggesting a lahorticulture (Bendremer and Dewar 1993).

Artifacts diagnostic of the period include Jacks Reef Pentagonal and Corner-Notched and Fprojectile points and rocker and dentate-stamped ceramics. Middle Woodland occupations

New England are commonly marked by a high occurrence of non-local chert, jasper, and v

of hornfels from the Blue Hills area south of Boston (Luedtke 1987; Ritchie and Gould 198

Boston Basin lithics and exotic cherts and jaspers is in contrast to the almost exclusive usargillite Small Stemmed materials and Terminal Archaic Orient Phase materials datingWoodland Period. The relative frequency of exotic raw materials from Middle Woodlan

the existence of long-distance exchange networks extending from Labrador to Pennsylvan(Dragoo 1976; Fitting 1978; Snow 1980).

A number of possible Middle Woodland Period occupations are suggested by artifacts inCollection. For example, the Winnetuxet/Taunton Site contained three Jacks Reef C

projectile points (Mahlstedt 1985). Middle Woodland Fox Creek projectile points were alsthe Oak Island Site (19-PL-50) on the North River.

Late Woodland Period (1000450 B.P.)

The distribution of Late Woodland Period archaeological deposits appears to be a contMiddle Woodland pattern with Late Woodland archaeological deposits common

environments, around interior freshwater ponds and wetlands, and adjacent to large tributa

rivers. Late Woodland settlement types included specialized exploitation sites (shell midden

processing camps, lithic workshops, etc.), small domestic sites, and larger hamlets or villagWoodland Period maize horticulture continued to gain in importance. With intensive maicame the need, refinement, and advances in storage technology to ensure that ample mavailable throughout the winter months and that a sufficient supply of seed crop would b

the next season. With an increased reliance on stationary storage facilities, people beca

specific site areas or localized regions, which resulted in decreased mobility, whereby residwas abandoned in favor of logistical mobility. Logistical mobility involved the mobilindividuals, as opposed to entire family units or perhaps bands, to set out for exploita

Coastal sites were contrasted with interior hunting sites where individuals exploited and huanimal species such as deer and gathered predictable botanical resources such as nuts and b

Reduction in communal mobility influenced the development of Late Woodland territorstructures. Social complexity, the formation of political alliances, and the establishmterritories appear to have developed during the period (Mulholland 1988). Many resea



46/280

Late Woodland artifacts represented in the regional archaeological record include triangula

Levanna type projectile points and cord-wrapped, stick-impressed, and incised ceramiLevanna projectile points were most often manufactured out of quartz, argillite, as we

derived from the Lynn Volcanic Suite and Blue Hills Area of northeastern Massachusetts aBasin, respectively, or coastal cobbles.

Site 19-PL-509, located on a high, flat ridge between Iron Mine Brook and its associated

than one mile south of the Area 1 Site produced numerous artifacts including a felsite Lev

point and aboriginal ceramic sherds.

Contact Period (450 - 300 B.P.)

Native American settlement and subsistence patterns established during the Late Wdisrupted beginning in the early sixteenth century with initial sporadic and later sustaine

European immigrants and settlers. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Native American sefocused within traditional coastal tribal territories that developed prior to and during the LPeriod. Aspects of the Native culture patterns remained unchanged, some intensified, wh

adapted from European practices as a result of contact. Traditional Native American materi

were supplemented by European items such as copper, brass, and iron pots, metal and jugs, cloth, etc. The subsistence economy of the resident Native Americans eventually chan

of the increasing reliance on and partial adaptations to, the European commodity-based ec(Turnbaugh 1993a, 1993b). Local Natives began to sell off their land or the rights tosupported by them as they became increasingly reliant upon European items and wer

coerced into a life of enforced dependency (Bourne 1990:135).

When European explorers and settlers first arrived on the shores of southeastern Massacvicinity of the Hanover Marketplace was the traditional tribal territory of the Massa

peoples. The Massachusett occupied the lands around Massachusetts Bay. Their neighbors

(Wampanoag) occupied the lands extending westward from the eastern shore of Narrag

along the coast to include Cape Cod and the Islands. Early European visitors tMassachusetts included Bartholomew Gosnold who attempted a settlement at Cuttyhunk iPring who visited Truro in 1603, George Waymouths visit to Nantucket in 1605, aChamplains (1615) followed by Captain John Smiths (1614) explorations along

Permanent settlement was not established until the Pilgrims settled Plymouth in 1

Contagious diseases, many of which the resident Algonquian Indians had not had sufficienup a natural immunity to, followed the recently arrived European immigrants to the Ameriwas a series of seventeenth-century epidemics that virtually decimated southern N

indigenous population depopulating large portions of eastern Massac

488 Hanover Technical Report

Documents

Transcript of 488 Hanover Technical Report