ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS HANOVER MARKETPLACE PROJECT AREA AREA 1 SITE (19-PL-749) AREA 2 SITE (19-PL-750) Hanover, Massachusetts

Transcription

1 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 Submitted by: The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. 26 Main Street Pawtucket, Rhode Island PAL Report No. 488 February 1998 (revised July 2013)

2 PAL Publications CARTOGRAPHERS Dana M. Richardi/Jane Miller GIS SPECIALIST Jane Miller GRAPHIC DESIGN/PAGE LAYOUT SPECIALISTS Gail M. Van Dyke

3

4

5 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

6

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT... i 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 Project History... 1 Archaeological Data Recovery... 6 Project Personnel... 7 Disposition of Project Data 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 Research Orientation and Questions PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Current Environmental Setting Bedrock Geology Soils Drainage Patterns Postglacial Vegetative Sequence for Eastern Massachusetts Vegetation Types NATIVE AMERICAN LAND USE AND SETTLEMENT PaleoIndian Period (13,000 10,000 B.P.) The Archaic Period (10, B.P.) Early Archaic Period (10, B.P.) Middle Archaic Period ( B.P.) Late Archaic Period ( B.P.) Transitional/Terminal Archaic Period ( B.P.) The Woodland Period ( B.P.) Early Woodland Period ( B.P.) Middle Woodland Period ( B.P.) Late Woodland Period ( B.P.) Contact Period ( B.P.) METHODOLOG Fieldwork Data Collection Techniques Archaeological Site Examination Archaeological Data Recovery Program - Area 1 Site Laboratory Processing and Specialized Analyses Processing Cataloguing Specialized Analysis of Cultural Materials PAL Report No. 488 iii

8 Table of Contents Curation Public Education Component 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 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 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 Period use 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 transition between the Archaic and 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? 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? 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? Conclusions REFERENCES APPENDICES A CATALOG OF CULTURAL MATERIAL RECOVERED, AREA 2 SITE, SITE EXAMINATION B CATALOG OF CULTURAL MATERIAL RECOVERED, AREA 1 SITE, SITE EXAMINATION iv PAL Report No. 488

9 Table of Contents 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 PAL Report No. 488 v

10 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. Figure 1-4. Figure 1-5. Areas of archaeological testing, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and Jones 1992)... 3 Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 1, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and Jones 1992)... 4 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 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 N45E Figure 6-2. Plan and profile of Area 1 Site Feature 2 in test pit N55E Figure 6-3. Profile of archaeological site examination EU 3 showing Feature Figure 6-4. Figure 6-5. Figure 6-6. Figure 6-7. Locations of archaeological test units, Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Locations of archaeological test units, S5W10 Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Contour map showing the relatively densities of Native American lithic materials within the Northeast Quadrant and S5W10 concentration areas, Area 1 Site Drills from the Area 1 Site (a. EU 2-SE, cmbs; b. EU 9-NW, cmbs; c. EU20-NE, cmbs) Figure 6-8. Arkose biface from EU 2, S5W10 Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site vi PAL Report No. 488

11 List of Figures Figure 6-9. Atl atl weights from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace (a. EU 1-NW, cmbs; b. EU 20-NE, cmbs) Figure Cobble tool/stone weight from EU 2, Area 1 Site Figure Lithic Materials from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Figure Lithic chipping debris by depth from the Site S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Figure Depths of cultural features from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace Figure Plan of cultural features from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Figure Profile of cultural features from the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Bifurcate-based projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 8-NE, cmbs; b. fragments from EU 8 and EU 11; c. EU 16-South Half, cmbs) Representative Middle Archaic Period projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 9-NE, cmbs; b. EU 7-NE, cmbs; c. EU 11-North half, cmbs; d. EU 7-SE, cmbs; e. EU 10-NW, cmbs; f. EU 23-SW, cmbs) Representative Brewerton-eared projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU10-NE, cmbs; b. EU11-North half, cmbs) Small Stemmed projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU19-NE, cmbs; b. EU21-East half, cmbs; c. EU 9-NW, cmbs; d. EU13-North half, cmbs; e. EU11-South half, cmbs; f. EU10-NE, cmbs) Squibnocket stemmed projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 7-SE, cmbs; b. EU 7-NW, cmbs; c. E 09-SW, cmbs; d. EU19-SE, cmbs; e. EU14-NW, cmbs; f. EU 7-NW, cmbs) Squibnocket triangle projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU21-East half, cmbs; b. EU 7-SW, cmbs; c. EU15-East half, cmbs; d. EU20-NW, cmbs) Representative Atlantic type projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU20-SE, cmbs; b. EU 8-NE, cmbs; c. EU 8-SW, cmbs; d. EU 8-NE, cmbs; e. EU10-SW, cmbs; f. EU23-NW, cmbs; g. EU 8-NE, cmbs) PAL Report No. 488 vii

12 List of Figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Representative Susquehanna Broad projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU 6-NW, cmbs; b. EU 7-NE, cmbs; c. EU12-NW, cmbs; d. EU12-NW, cmbs; e. EU 8-NW, cmbs) Wayland Notched projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU14-SW, 5-10 cmbs; b. EU 8-SE, cmbs; c. EU14-NE, cmbs) Orient Fishtail projectile points from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU15-West half, cmbs; b. EU18-East half, cmbs; c. EU19-SE, 5-10 cmbs; d. EU 7-NW, cmbs Jack s Reef Corner Notched projectile point from data recovery EU 12 at the Area 1 Site Representative bifaces from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU12-NW, cmbs; b. EU13-South half, cmbs; c. EU11-North half, cmbs; d. EU14-NW, cmbs; f. EU09-SE, cmbs; f. EU10-SW, cmbs; g. EU06-SE, cmbs; h. EU07-SE, cmbs; i. EU cmbs; j. EU19-SW, cmbs Representative large bifaces from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site (a. EU17-South half, cmbs; b. EU14-NW, cmbs; c. EU08-SW, cmbs) Figure Stone pestle from EU 20, Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Figure Figure Lithic chipping debris materials from the Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Lithic chipping debris by depth from the Site Northeast Quadrant Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Figure Plan of Native American cultural features 5, 6, and 8 in EUs 6, 8, and 11, Area 1 Site Figure Feature 5 stratigraphic profile of EU 6, Area 1 Site Figure Features 6 and 8 stratigraphic profiles in EU 8, Area 1 Site Figure Plan of Feature 9 in EUs 12, 14, 20, and 22, Area 1 Site Figure Plan of Feature 10 at 20 cmbs in EU 21, Area 1 Site Figure Plan of Feature 11 in EU 13, Area 1 Site Figure Plan of Features 12 and 14 in EU 23, Area 1 Site Figure Plan of Feature 2 at 30 cmbs in EUs 18 and 19 and site examination EU3, Area 1 Site viii PAL Report No. 488

13 List of Figures Figure Plan of Feature 13 data recover EU19 and site examination EU3, Area 1 Site Figure East and west profile of EU19 showing Feature 2 and Feature 13, Area 1 Site PAL Report No. 488 ix

14 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 Marketplace Table 6-3. Table 6-4. Table 6-5. Table 6-6. Table 6-7. Table 6-8. Table 6-9. Table Pre-contact Native American Cultural Material by Depth, Area 2 Site, Hanover Marketplace, Site Examination Vertical Distribution of Chipping Debris Recovered during Archaeological Data Recovery of the Area 1 Site Distribution of Chipping Debris by Size Range Recovered during the Data Recovery Program of the Area 1 Site Inventory of Cultural Features Identified within the S5W10 Concentration Area, Area 1 Site Data Recovery Program Distribution of Native American stone tools from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace Projectile and projectile point fragments from the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace Nineteenth and twentieth century cultural materials recovered during the archaeological site examination of the Area 1 and Area 2 Sites, Hanover Marketplace Post-contact period cultural materials recovered during data recovery archaeological investigations of the Area 1 Site, Hanover Marketplace Table 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 Geochemical Analysis Table 7-2. Trace Element Data for Artifact and Debitage Samples Table 7-3. Results of Petrographic Thin Section Analysis Table 7-4. Vertical Distribution of Diagnostic Projectile Points x PAL Report No. 488

15 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 (ft 2 ) retail center is located on a 15.4-acre parcel of land and includes a 50,393 ft 2 Shaw s Supermarket and an attached 9,800 sq ft 2 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

16 Chapter One Figure 1-2. Hanover Marketplace on the Hanover, USGS topographic quadrangle. 2 PAL Report No. 488

17 Introduction Figure 1-3. Areas of archaeological testing, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and Jones 1992). PAL Report No

18 Chapter One Figure 1-4. Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 1, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and Jones 1992). 4 PAL Report No. 488

19 Introduction Figure 1-5. Subsurface archaeological testing, Area 2, Hanover Marketplace (source: Missio and Jones 1992). PAL Report No

20 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 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 (m 2 ) 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 m 2 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 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 PAL Report No. 488

21 Introduction under Massachusetts State Archaeologist s permit No 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

22 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

23 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

24 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

25 Research Design Figure 2-1. Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 1 Site. PAL Report No

26 Research Design Figure 2-2. Site examination archaeological testing and limits of the Area 2 Site. PAL Report No

27 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 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 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 B.P.). However, the recovery of Vinette I type ceramic sherds from proximity to archaeological deposits radiocarbon dated to ca PAL Report No. 488

28 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

29 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

30 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 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