Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Journals and Campus Publications Society

Fall 2006 Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Vol. 67, No. 2 Massachusetts Archaeological Society

Follow this and additional works at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/bmas Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons

Copyright © 2006 Massachusetts Archaeological Society

This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

VOLUME 67 (2) Fall 2006

CONTENTS:

Editor's Note 41

An Atlantic Phase Mortuary Feature at the Call Site, Billerica, MA Eugene JiWnter 42

A Review of Transitional Archaic Mortuary Features at the Seaver Farm, Bridgewater, MA JiWlliam B. Taylor 48

Re-assessing Wapanucket: Paleolndians in Southeast MA James W Bradley andJeff Boudreau 59

Hoes, Digging Implements or Heavy Scrapers? Bernard A. Otto 73

In Memorium: Douglas F. Jordan, 1925-2006 Eugene JiWnter and Nicholas Bellantoni 74

INDEX to Volumes 61-66, 2000-2005 76

Contributors. inside back cover

THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Inc. P. O. Box 700, Middleborough, Massachusetts 02346-0700 THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Inc. Robbins Museum of Archaeology Web Site address: www.massarchaeology.org Contact by phone: (508) 947-9005 by email: [email protected]

Officers: Tonya Largy,59 Moore Road, Wayland, MA 01778 President Frederica Dimmick, 10 Sassamon Road, Natick, MA 01778 Vice President Susan Jacobucci, 678 Chief Justice Cushing Highway, Scituate, MA 02066 Clerk Edwin C. Ballard, 26 Heritage Road, Rehoboth, MA 02769 Treasurer Eugene Winter, 54 Trull Lane, Lowell, MA 01852 Museum Coordinator James W. Bradley, 55 Park Street, Charlestown, MA 02129 Bulletin Editor Curtiss Hoffman, 58 Hilldale Road, Ashland, MA 01721 Corresponding Secretary Michael Volmar, Fruitlands Museum, Harvard, MA Past President

Trustees: Term Expires Janet M. Bessette, 36 Church Street, Gilbertville, MA 01031 October 2008 Craig Chartier, 248 Nash Road, New Bedford, MA 02746 October 2006 Philip Graham, 13 Liberty Lane, Norwood, MA 02062 October 2008 John F. Healey, 222 Purchase Street, Middleborough, MA 02346 October 2006 Thomas Lux, 38 Somerset Avenue, Riverside, RI 02915 October 2008 Richard Lynch, 12 Greenbrier Road, Greenville, RI 02828 October 2008 Maryanne MacLeod, Swett Hill Road, Sterling, MA 01564 October 2006 John Rempelakis, 7 Fairview Farm Road, Haverhill, MA 01832 October 2007 Alan F. Smith, 156 Ararat Street, Worcester, MA 01606 October 2008 Jeffery Stevens, 36 Neponset Avenue #2A, Roslindale, MA 02131 October 2007 William Taylor, 108 Vernon Street, Middleboro, MA 02346 October 2007 John Thompson, 406 Main Street, Medfield, MA 02052 October 2007

Judith Zeitlin, Dept. Anthropology, UMass, Boston, MA 02125 MAS Representative on the MHC Richard Lynch, 12 Greenbrier Road, Greenville, RI 02828 Newsletter Editor Curtiss Hoffman, 58 Hilldale Road, Ashland, MA 01721 Membership Director Jeff Boudreau, 38 Albert Ray Drive, Ashland, MA 01721 Photographer Kathryn M. Fairbanks, 145 Aldrich Street, Roslindale, MA 02131 Librarian Jeffery Stevens, 36 Neponset Avenue #2A, Roslindale, MA 02131 Museum Administrator/WebMaster Tom Largy,59 Moore Road, Wayland, MA 01778 WebMaster

The BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETYis published semi-annually, with a Spring issue, Number 1, and a Fall issue, Number 2. Institutional subscriptions are $30; individual memberships in the Society that include receiving the Bulletin are $20. Information on special rates for membership without the Bulletin, family members, seniors and students, as well as requests for back issues of the Bulletin, should be addressed to the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, P.O. Box 700, Middleborough, MA 02346 (508-947-9005). Publication in the Bulletin is a privilege of membership. Manuscripts and communications may be sent to the editor, James W. Bradley, 55 Park Street, Charlestown, MA 02129 or emailed to [email protected].

Printed by Kendall Press, One Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02141 This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society.

BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 41

Editor's Note

This issue of the Bulletin focuses on the re-analysis of collections and records from old excavations, and what we can learn from them. The first two articles discuss features that relate to the complex mortuary traditions of the Transitional Archaic. Gene Winter provides a detailed review of Feature 14 at the Call site. Although excavated in 1957, Gene reports several aspects of this significant feature for the first time. In his article, Bill Taylor reviews the long and complex history of the Susquehanna­ related mortuary features at the Seaver Farm site. Since much of his own work has been published previously, this report focuses on other related excavations, such as those of Gerald Dun in 1937 and Jim Deetz in 1969, which have not. Taken together, these excavations allow us to piece together an overview of one of Massachusetts' largest and most important pre-Contact mortuary sites. Jeff Boudreau and I continue our exploration of PaleoIndian sites in Massachusetts with a re-assessment of the Wapanucket site. First reported in 1964, the Paleo component at Wapanucket (Locus 8) has strong similarities with the well-known Bull Brook site. However, like the rest of this large multi-component site, the PaleoIndian presence turns out to be multi-component as well. Finally, Bernard Otto reminds us that artifacts other than projectile points are significant, even when their exact function remains unclear. New England archaeology lost a good friend and founding father with the passing of Doug Jordan in late July. Since Doug played an important role in the archaeology of both Massachusetts and Connecticut, both Gene Winter and State Archaeologist Nick Bellantoni remember Doug as a friend and mentor. Finally, this issue contains the index for volumes 61 to 66 of the Bulletin covering the years 2000 to 2005. Many thanks to Kathy Fairbanks, Freddie Dirnrnock and Susan Jacobucci for their efforts in preparing this author, title and subject index. Finally, my thanks as always to Shirley Blancke and Kathy Fairbanks for proof reading, and to Margaret Bradley for her assistence with editing and formatting.

James W. Bradley This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society.

42 Winter: An Atlantic Phase Mortuary Feature An Atlantic Phase Mortuary Feature at the Call Site, Billerica, MA

Eugene Winter

Introduction eleven inches below ground surface. The upper levels were a dark brown loam that contained In 1954, the Willoughby Chapter of the ceramic sherds and Woodland Period lithics Massachusetts Archaeological Society ex­ between 4 and 6 inches deep and a layer of cavated a portion of the Call site (19-MD-37), a quartz debitage that included a scraper and large Native American site on the east bank of small stemmed point between 9 and 11 inches. the Concord River at the falls in North Billerica. At 11 inches deep, the tip of a large granite slab Walter Vossberg directed this excavation and was also encountered. Excavations around this published a brief account of the findings slab continued to reveal disturbed soils and at (Vossberg and Mansfield 1955). Through the fourteen inches below grade, the outline of a efforts of a small group of volunteers, work circular pit became evident, the dark mottled continued on the site through 1957. Except for soil within the pit contrasting sharply with the a brief article by one of the participants, light colored sand into which it had been dug. Bradford S. Brennon, no final report was ever produced. The pit itself was about two feet in diameter at the top and broadened out slightly to become Although I was not a member of the Chapter, 35" wide near the base. In the center of this pit Vossberg invited me to visit the project. was the stone slab. It was roughly triangular in Vossberg also realized that Brennon, a new shape and measured 6 inches across at the top member who had not excavated before, might and 10 inches across at the bottom. This granite have some trouble and asked me to help him slab stood upright in the center of the pit and record an unusual feature that he was was supported by two smaller stones at the base uncovering. While Brennon did not have much (Figure 1). Feature 14 contained at least fourteen

field experience, he was an organized person NIO W5 N15 W5 and was eager to record information correctly. As a result, field drawings were made and the location of all artifacts, complete and BROWNWAM fragmentary, was recorded. All the artifacts were also numbered. This allowed fragments .. of broken and burned artifacts to be fitted back I - together later without loss of the archaeological REDBR context. This turned out to be important since SAND the feature that Brennon had found was a small burial pit (Feature 14) that contained cremated t . ...'... '\ human remains as well as many broken and . burned cu:;tifacts. Although Brennon did write a YELWW brief report for The New Hampshire SAND Archeologist (Brennon 1960), this important site and its assemblage deserve a more thorough description. That is the purpose of this article.

Feature 14 GRAVEL Feature 14 was located in unit N15W5 and did not become visible until excavations reached Figure 1. Schematic profile of Feature 14. Copyright © 2006 Eugene Winter BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 43 has suggested that small sheets of bark could have been used to transfer the hot material from the crematory to the burial pit and then thrown in as part of the fill (Thomas 1972).

Another unusual aspect of Feature 14 was that it had been dug through a thick level of quartz debitage, yet none of this material was present within the feature. This dense level of quartz, designated Feature 15, was composed largely of flakes, blocky shatter and a few scrapers, and extended beyond unit N15W5 into all the adjacent squares. Within the unit, Brennan re­ covered 467 pieces of quartz outside the Figure 2. Photograph of Feature 14 during excavation. Note the granite boundaries of Feature 14, slab in the center of the pit and fragmentary artifacts in the feature fill. providing an indication of large Atlantic bifaces (whether these were used how dense this quartz level was. Even though as projectile points, knives or performs is Feature 14 must have been dug through this unclear), an argillite drill, two small beveled earlier level, no quartz was recovered from the cobble abraiders, a spall from an axe or adze feature fill. Clearly, the people who built this and a fire-making kit comprised of a strike-a- mortuary feature were very particular about light and a limonite nodule. Ten small how it was constructed. Did they leave the tip of fragments of cremated bone were also found the granite slab visible? Did it serve as a within a bed of charcoal at the base of the pit marker? That we cannot know. (Figure 2). Artifact Assemblage In spite of the charcoal, it appears that these artifacts and remains were cremated elsewhere One purpose of this article is to provide good on the site, then transferred to this pit for final illustrations of the materials associated with this interment. There was no discoloration in the mortuary feature. Figure 3 (see next page) adjacent subsoil or other evidence of burning in illustrates two groups of these burned artifacts. place. In addition, a half dozen artifact The upper portion (3.1) shows a sample of the fragments found outside the feature cross­ incinerated biface fragments recovered from mended with those from within the feature. within the feature. Some of these are This suggests that some pieces of fire-shattered recognizable as sections of projectile points or objects had been scattered, intentionally or not, knives. The lower portion (3.2) shows three on the way from the crematory to the mortuary Atlantic points heavily damaged by fire. The pit. Based on the study of similar re-deposited example on the left is a felsite point split from tip cremations at the West River site, John Witthoft to base and further broken into three blocky Wmter: An Atlantic Phase Mortuary Feature felsite point base with a ragged fire-shattered edge. Number 4.6 is another fractured chert point with multiple small "potlid" fractures on both faces. Number 4.7, which lacks its basal section, is made of an unidentified volcanic material. It is unclear whether its high glassy luster is a trait of the lithic material or a result of incineration.

Figure 5 shows several of the remammg artifacts found in Feature 14. Number 5.1 is a felsite Atlantic point with a dull blue-gray surface that has been reassembled from five pieces. Number 5.2 is a finely made chert Atlantic point in two pieces with fire spaDed along the right side. The source of this chert is uncertain, in part because of the discoloration caused by fire. Number 5.3 is another felsite Atlantic point complete except for a missing tip. This point shows no obvious fire damage. Number 5.4 is a small complete chert point. This point as well as number 5.5 (a chert base) were found in the dark brown loam directly Figure 3. 3.1. A sample of burned and shattered above the Feature 14. Numbers 5.6 and 5.10 biface fragments from Feature 14. 3.2. Three Atlantic are bifaces that show the extreme effects of points heavily damaged by fire. being burned. Number 5.6 is another Atlantic fragments. The middle example is an point refitted from five pieces. Although incomplete chert point damaged by made of felsite like numbers 5.1 and 5. 3, it is exfoliation and "potlid" fractures. It is made from a gray-brown chert reddened by heat. The example on the right is a partial felsite point broken into blocky, fire-dulled fragments.

Figure 4 shows a series of Atlantic bifaces recovered from Feature 14. Numbers 4.1 and 4.2 are performs. The larger example (4.2) is made of felsite; the smaller one (4.1) is made from unidentified dark gray, fine-grained material that has split along a cleavage plane. Number 4.3 is a large Atlantic point made of felsite and broken into more than three pieces. The fragments shown are heat discolored. Number 4.4 is a large chert point comprised of eight fragments. This point appears to have shattered in the cremation process since different pieces show different degrees of Figure 4. Several of the large bifaces from Feature 14. thermal alteration. Number 4.5 is a See text for specific descriptions. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 45 pit, it is also important to note what was not present. There was no evidence that soapstone vessels, shell ornaments, native copper or red ochre were associated with Feature 14.

Discussion

In her study of cremation cemeteries in eastern Massa­ chusetts, Dincauze mentioned the Call site, based on Brennon's work, and suggested that these small burial features appeared to date from the beginning of the . Susquehanna tradition (Dincauze 1968:81). Dincauze also noted that while the bifaces from these features were similar to the Lehigh Broad points of Pennsylvania and Snook Kill points in the Hudson Valley and western Figure 5. Additional artifacts from Feature 14. See text for New England, there were specific descriptions. differences as well. As a chalky and nearly white in appearance. result, she proposed a distinct "Atlantic phase" Number 5.10 is a chert preform or point that for these sites in eastern New England and shows extensive exfoliation. It was split into at suggested that this dated between 4,100 and least seven laminar fragments and has multiple 3,600 years ago (Dincauze 1972:57). "potlid" fractures. The drill shown in number 5.7 was found in two pieces in different In subsequent work, Dincauze refined her ideas portions of the feature. It is made of argillite about the Susquehanna tradition further, and has an Atlantic-style base. Number 5.8 proposing that it contained three different shows the mid-section from another large chert phases. Sites of the first, or Atlantic phase, drill found within the burial pit. While the tip appear without clear antecedents in the early and base were not recovered, a very similar centuries of the fourth millennium B.P. These base was found in a nearby unit, N10EO. Both sites represent an intrusive population moving are m~de from the same blue-gray chert. One into the region from the southwest, one that other artifact was found that had fragments in brought its own distinct traditions and lithic two distinctly different places. The strike-a­ preferences, one that favored fine-grained light made on the basal section of an Atlantic volcanics and argillite. The subsequent point (5.9), was found in two pieces. One was Watertown phase appears to have been a time of in the charcoal at the bottom of the feature, the adaptation and social consolidation. Soapstone other was near the top of the pit in the mottled vessels become important during this phase. fill. Sites of the final Coburn phase reflect a strong regionalism that appears to represent the In addition to what was found within the burial amalgamation of neighboring peoples. By 3,000 46 Winter: An Atlantic Phase Mortuary Feature to sixty more Atlantic-style bifaces have been recovered from across the site area. Walter Vossberg, for example, reported finding ten Atlantic points in his 6.1 excavations at Call (Malhstedt 1985:4). Figure 6 shows a sample of the non­ mortuary bifaces from the site. They include performs and finished points of chert and felsite as well as broken, re­ sharpened and discarded examples. Whether it was the fishing potential at the falls or some other kind of resource, it is clear that the people who constructed Feature 14 also used the area for a wide range of other, non-mortuary activities.

Although the concentration of Atlantic phase material at the Call site is unusual, it is not unique. At the nearby Shattuck Farm site, located on the Merrimack River, Luedtke inventoried twenty-four Susquehanna tradition points of which sixteen were Atlantics. These included 6.11 twelve examples of felsite, two of argillite, one of chert, and one (surprisingly) of quartz (Luedtke 1985:287). Shattuck Farm is perhaps a two-hour walk from the Call Figure 6. Atlantic Phase bifaces from occupation levels site. of the Call site. Numbers 6.1-4, 6.7-9 and 6.11-13 are gray to black felsite; numbers 6.5-6 and 6.10 are dark gray In addition to these surface indications, chert. several caches of Atlantic phase bifaces have been reported along the Concord B.P., the Orient phase emerges as a product of River and adjacent portions of the lower this assimilation (Dincauze 1975:26-7). Merrimack Valley. C. C. Ferguson reported several caches of "blanks and partially finished From this perspective, Feature 14 at the Call site implements" from the Heard Pond site. The fits most comfortably in the Atlantic phase. The largest of these contained twenty-seven pieces lithics from the feature are almost equally (Ferguson 1945). Another cache containing at divided between cherts, possibly from the least thirteen points and performs was found by Hudson Valley, and felsites from eastern Arthur Hofmann near the outlet to Foster's Pond Massachusetts. However, given the dis­ (Hofmann 1943). A more complete analysis of coloration and distortion caused by burning, it material from the Hofmann site indicated that is difficult to identify the sources of these more than twice that number of Atlantic points materials more precisely. The lack of soapstone were found at the site (Bullen and Hofmann and other mortuary offerings also argue that 1944:190). An even larger cache of forty-six Feature 14 represents an Atlantic phase burial. Atlantic performs was found at a farm on the Ipswich-Rowley border in 1888 (Hadlock 1947; However, the Call site was more than a Jones 1948). It is likely that further research will mortuary location for Atlantic phase people. document additional examples. Beyond the examples found in Feature 14, fifty BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 47 Conclusion Acknowledgements

Although many sites in eastern I want to thank Barbara Brown and Don Slater Massachusetts show evidence of early for their help preparing the photographs for this Susquehanna tradition, Atlantic phase, article. occupation, only a few mortuary-related features have been reported. To date, Feature 14 at the Call site is perhaps the best documented example.

References Cited

Brennon, Branford 1960 A Possible Secondary Cremation. The New Hampshire Archeologist10:2-5. Bullen, Ripley P. and Arthur M. Hofmann 1944 The Hofmann Site. American Antiquity10(2):187-97 Dincauze, Dena F. 1968 Cremation Cemeteries in Eastern Massachusetts. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 59(1). Cambridge, MA. 1972 The Atlantic Phase: A Late Archaic Culture in Massachusetts. Man in the Nortlleast4:40-61. 1975 The Late Archaic Period in Southern New England. Arctic Anthropology 12(2):23-34. Ferguson, C. C. 1945 Heard Pond Indian Site. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society 7(1 ):9. Hadlock, Wendell S. 1947 A Cache from Ipswich. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society9(2):73-74. Hofmann, Arthur M. 1943 A Strange Deposit of Spearpoints. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society5(1):11-15. Jones, Howard A. 1948 A Cache from Ipswich II: Two Letters. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society 10(2):46-47. Luedtke, Barbara E. 1985 The Camp at the Bend in the River: Prehistory at the Shattuck Farm Site. Occasional Publications in Archaeology and History. Massachusetts Historical Commission. Boston, MA. Mahlstedt, Thomas F. 1985 Prehistoric Collections from Eastern Massachusetts: the Walter Vossberg Collection. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, MA. Thomas, Ronald A. editor 1972 Proceedings ofthe Third AnnualMiddle AtlanticArchaeological Conference. University of Delaware, Newark, DE. Vossberg, Walter A. and J. Alan Mansfield 1955 A Preliminary Report on the Concord River Site at Billerica, MA. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society16 (2):20-24. This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society. 48 Taylor: Review of Transitional Archaic Mortuary Features A Review of Transitional Archaic Motuary Features at the Seaver Farm, Bridgewater, MA

William B. Taylor

Abstract

During the Transitional Archaic Period (ca. 3,800 to 3,000 B.P.), the Susquehanna tradition spread rapidly throughout what we now call southern New England. Evidence for this transition includes a distinctive range of Atlantic and Susquehanna-style projectile points as well as elaborate cremation burials. These burial features are characterized by calcined human bone fragments, red ochre and fire-damaged artifacts, usually ground stone tools and large bifaces. These are often made

from lithic material that originated from HOU!f F/~r _.: outside the region. One of the largest known 1.... or i -g. Cr

Excavation of Dunn's Feature

During the fall of 1936, a large area of charcoal was exposed by plowing on Russell B. Seaver's farm in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The area was "some twenty-four feet in diameter and three feet in depth" and produced a large amount of broken material including "axes, arrow and spear points, pestles and rubbing Figure 1. Map of the Seaver Farm site (after stones"(Dunn 1942). Knowing that Gerald C. Taylor 1970:1). Dunn, the county agricultural agent, was an the neighborhood (Figures 2 and 3). Digging ardent collector of Indian relics, Mr. Seaver was done with shovels and the fill was screened. invited him to come and investigate. This site Unfortunately, no records were kept and we was located on the western boundary of the have only the brief description contained in Seaver Farm, adjacent to the Titicut site (Figure Dunn's 1942 Bulletin article. Among the details 1). he noted was that at least four distinct caches of "knife blades" were found, one of which was While few details of Dunn's excavation have three feet below the surface. He also observed survived, it is clear that he dug a large portion that pieces of bone, which he identified as deer, of this feature during the spring and summer were scattered through the charcoal. In fairness of 1937 with the help of three young men from to Dunn, this type of large mortuary feature had Copyright © 2006 William B. Taylor BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 49 that it is possible to make a fairly complete report on this important site. That is the primary purpose of this article.

The Assemblage

Dunn estimated that more than 400 artifacts were recovered from this mortuary feature. These included both ground stone implements and flaked bifaces. In terms of the ground stone tools that can be documented, they include: four complete grooved axes (plus fragments from at least three more), four celts, three gouges, and one adze Figure 2. Gerald Dunn's 1937 crew. From left to right: Russell (plus fragments from at least Seaver, Frank Green, Charlie MacKinnon and Roy Richmond. eleven other edged tools), seven not been documented in 1937, so it not pestles (plus fragments from at least two more) surprising that Dunn thought he was digging and several rubbing stones or hones. Also through ~ series of "fire pits". present are: a plummet, the fragment of a winged atl-atl weight and a piece of a ground While much remains unknown about the slate gorget. Finally, six apparently unmodified feature, or features, that DUnn excavated, it is cobbles, possibly intended as hammer stones, clear is that a huge amount of material was and a piece of hematite complete the list. recovered. Dunn estimated that all together, some 400 pieces, whole and broken, were found. I have spent many years trying to reconstruct this assemblage. Dunn eventually sold all his material from the crematory to Karl Dodge, an early and active member of the MAS. Unfortunately, Karl sold or traded away nearly all of the ground stone tools. However, after his death I purchased the remainder of the collection from his wife Mildred. I also have had the opportunity to examine seventeen photographs by the Seaver family taken during the dig. Two of these are reproduced here. One unknown is how many artifacts were kept by two local boys who raided the site. One told me that his father made him return all the things he'd recovered. The other boy apparently kept what he found. This included "a green axe in excellent condition" that Dunn described as 7.25 " in length, 4" ",ride and "the finest piece in the whole collection" (Dunn 1942:33). This axe was subsequently taken to Figure 3. Gerald Dunn holding an axe and a California. Such uncertainties aside, I now feel celt. Note the large pestle on the ground. 50 Taylor: Review of Transitional Archaic Mortuary Features

I find it interesting that no evidence of soapstone bowls was recovered. This makes the Seaver Farm burials very different from those at the Hawes site in nearby Lakeville (Lord 1962). Also, while I assume that all of these ground stone artifacts came from the mortuary feature, some may have been accidental inclusions or come from the occupational levels on the site. As we will see below, this was certainly the case with projectile points.

While the inventory of ground stone implements is impressive, the array of chipped stone tools is more dramatic. Even if a few pieces have been lost, I can account for 148 complete bifaces plus an additional 335 fragments. While most of these fit within the Figure 5. Wayland Notched points from Dunn's accepted range of Transitional Archaic styles, feature. See text for details. some earlier and later points are also present. The following five figures illustration most of remaining four are made from brown jasper. the complete bifaces that carne from Dunn's excavation. Figure 5 illustrates nine Wayland Notched points, bifaces more typical of Susquehanna Figure 4 illustrates an unusual set of bifaces, a tradition burials. Eight of these came from group of twenty-nine small side and end Dunn's excavation. The exception is the scrapers. These represent one of the caches example in upper row, center, which was found reported by Dunn. Twenty-five are made of fine in one of the secondary burials (Pit #12) semi-translucent gray chalcedony, possibly from discussed below. All are made of eastern a Pennsylvania source. Several of these still Massachusetts felsites; the example in the upper have red ochre embedded in the cracks. The row, left, is Attleboro red felsite.

A second cache recovered by Dunn is pictured in Figure 6. This group of thirty-one Mansion Inn blades includes Watertown, Dudley and Coburn varieties. The largest of these is four inches in length. All but three are made of Attleboro red felsite. The others are eastern Massachusetts felsite, probably from the Lynn series. Many of these specimens show heat damage and were badly fractured. Fortunately, however, Dunn appears to have recovered most of the pieces and was able to reconstruct most of these bifaces.

Figure 7 illustrates another twenty-five Mansion Inn blades from this large mortuary feature. It is not clear whether these were recovered together or were found during the course of Dunn's excavation. All are made from various regional Figure 4. Cache of chalcedony and jasper felsites. Figure 7 also includes one Eared scrapers from Dunn's feature. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 51

Figure 6. Cache of Mansion Inn blades from Dunn's feature. See text for details.

Figure 7. Additional Mansion Inn blades as well as other bifaces recovered by Dunn. See text for details.

Triangular point (top row, left) and four Orient Here again, while the Wayland Notched blades Fishtail points (bottom row, left). These seem probably did came from the mortuary feature, out of place in a Susquehanna tradition burial some of the other side-notched, stemmed and and may be an example of later inclusions. even triangular points probably from occupational levels of the site. These points also Figure 8 (see next page) shows the remaining range widely in terms of material and include thirty-four points from Dunn's excavation. felsite, chert, hornfels and argillite. 52 Taylor: Review of Transitional Archaic Mortuary Features r------~---_------identify with confidence. For example, only thirty-five of the 335 fragments, or 19%, could be identified in terms in style. We fared a little better with lithic materials and were able to identify 117, or 35%, of the 335 fragments. While this will not give a complete picture of the assemblage, it does provide our best guess about which point styles and lithic materials were most common in the feature.

As indicated in Table I, Mansion Inn blades are the most frequently occurring biface, 40% of the sample. These are followed by scrapers and Wayland Notched points (16% each), drills (4%) and Boats blades (2%). Projectile points accounted for only 22% of the bifaces. Of these, Orient fishtails are the most frequently occurring style, 10 of 41 or 24%, while only a small number of Atlantic and Susquehanna points are present. The Figure 8. The remaining complete points from majority of points appear to represent other Dunn's excavation. See text for details. time periods from Middle Archaic through the Woodland period.

With the assistance ofJeff Boudreau, I have tried Table 2 summarizes the lithic materials to sort out the remaining 335 biface fragments in represented from Dunn's feature. Most terms of the point styles and lithic materials frequent are felsites from the Lynn series, represented. This was difficult since most of the 35% of the 231 identifiable lithics. fragments were badly burned and difficult to Surprisingly, the second most common lithic is the purple to black Table 1. Summary of artifacts from Dunn's excavation by type. Lockatong argillite that originates in northern New #ot Jersey and eastern Penn­ complete #0£ Style pieces fragments Totals sylvania, 19% of the identi­ fiable pieces. Nearly tied for 52 22 74 40%) Mansion Inn blades third and fourth are cherts, Watertown variety 12 11 23 possibly from the Hudson Dudley variety 6 0 6 Valley, 13%, and Attleboro red Coburn varietv 34 11 45 felsite, 12%. Other lithic Wayland Notched, all 23 6 29 (16%) varieties materials are present only in small amounts. These include Boats blades 2 1 3 2%) other regional felsites, Drills 5 1 6 4%) argillites and quartzite as well Scrapers 30 0 30 (16%) as a few exotics materials we Projectile points 36 5 41 (22%) were not able to identify. Atlantic points 1 0 1 However the vast majority of Susquehanna points 2 5 7 fragments, 218 pieces or 65% Orient points 10 0 10 of the total, had been heavily other points 23 0 23 burned and identification of Totals 148 (81%) 35 (19%) 183 100%) BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 53

and figure 2). We also Table 2. Summary of artifacts from Dunn's excavation by discovered that the actual lithic material. size of Dunn's feature was #of twelve by fifteen feet, complete #of much smaller than Dunn's Material pieces fragments Totals original estimate. Lynn felsites 44 37 81 Chert 1 28 29 Secondary Burials Chalcedony 25 0 25 Lockatong argillite 10 34 44 In exploring the area south Attleboro red felsite 22 6 28 of the crematory, I Boston Basin felsites 5 12 17 discovered several other Pennsylvaniaiasper 4 0 4 deposits of charcoal, red Kineo rhyolite 3 0 3 ochre and calcined bone fragments. Careful investi­ 114 (77%) 117 (35%) 231 (48%) Subtotals gation led to the discovery Other 34 (23%) 218 (65%) 252 (52%) of four smaller pit features Totals 148 335 483 (#1-4) south of Dunn's feature and one more (#5) the lithic material was not possible. to the west (Figure 1). These appeared to be a series of secondary burials located around the Dunn's Feature re-visited edge of the large mortuary pit Dunn had discovered. Since these burial pits have been In April 1969 the Seaver Farm was sold to a described in detail in a previous article (Taylor local builder and, over the next eighteen 1970) so I will summarize them here. months, seventeen new houses were built along Beach and Vernon Streets. Fill for this housing Pit #1 was thirty by forty inches in diameter and development was obtained from a three-acre twenty-four inches deep. At the base were three alfalfa field on the west edge of the farm, pockets of red ochre each about twelve inches in adjoining the Titicut Site. First, the loam was diameter. One of these ochre deposits bulldozed into a large pile on the east side of contained a small quantity of calcined bone. No the field. Then five feet of subsoil, down to the artifacts were associated with these deposits white sand, was excavated and trucked around although a quartz scraper and three points (a to the various buildings sites. This operation quartz small stem, a Stark and a Wayland destroyed part of the old Seaver Farm site and Notched) were found in the pit fill. also left a steep bank at the edge of the property. Each night after work I examined this Pit #2 was thirty by thirty-six inches in diameter bank for artifacts, charcoal or red ocher. This and twenty-four inches deep. The base of the led to the re-discovery of the Dunn's feature, pit was filled with a three-inch deep level of the edge of which I found exposed in the bank yellow sand and red ochre which contained one later that summer. With the assistance of my large Watertown variety Mansion Inn blade sons, we re-excavated the remaining portion. made of Kineo rhyolite (Figure 9f, see next In addition to large amounts of charcoal and page). No charcoal or calcined bones was small patches of red ochre, we recovered present. several artifacts that Dunn had missed. These included thirteen projectile points, primarily Pit #3 was forty by forty inches in diameter and Wayland Notched and Susquehanna style, as twenty-seven inches deep. Once again, there well as pieces of hematite, graphite and many were three pockets of red ochre, each eight fire burned and broken fragments of both inches in diameter, at the base of the pit. ground and chipped stone tools (Taylor 1972:2 Although these deposits had neither charcoal or 54 Taylor: Review of Transitional Archaic Mortuary Features

abc d e f 5~---- Figure 9. Selected large bifaces from Dunn's excavation and secondary burials. See text for details. calcined bone, one contained a Susquehanna pockets of ochre towards the bottom that point. Another Mansion Inn blade was found merged into a single layer two inches deep. No between ochre deposits (Figure 9c). bone or charcoal was present and only a single felsite flake was found. Pit #4 was thirty-six by forty inches and diameter and twenty-seven inches deep. It had Pit #10 was larger and more complex than any two ochre pockets, each twelve inches across. of the previously discovered pits. It was fifty­ Although small pieces of charcoal were four by sixty inches in diameter and forty-three scattered throughout, no bones or artifacts inches deep. In addition to a twelve inch in were present. diameter deposit of red ochre on the northwest side and similar deposition of pulverized Pit #5 was twenty-two by forty-six inches in charcoal ten inches in diameter on the northeast diameter and twenty-five inches deep. Like Pit side, this pit contained four distinct burial #4, it had fine charcoal in the fill and two deposits. The first contained several pieces of pockets of red ochre at its base. These were calcined bone and a finely made Susquehanna eight inches in diameter. One contained three point. The second contained a stemmed knife of small fragments of burned cranial bone. felsite (Figure ge), three large felsite flakes and an argillite scraper but no bone or charcoaL The Given this pattern of these secondary burials, third included a stemmed knife of quartzite, we continued our explorations around Dunn's three felsite Mansion Inn blades and a small pit the following summer. Sure enough, as we cobblestone hammer. All the bifaces showed dug along the west and northwest sides, we the effects of burning. The fourth deposit discovered five additional mortuary pits. contained the largest amount of material: a These are described in greater detail (Taylor broken Mansion Inn blade, the base of a 1972) and are summarized below. Susquehanna point, two performs and two large worked flakes. All were felsite and showed fire Pit #9 was thirty inches in diameter and damage. A flat pebble with a slightly pecked twenty-seven inches deep. It contained three surface and a large pestle broken in two pieces BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 55 were also found. color, 9c. Mansion Inn blade, Dudley variety, of purple felsite from Pit #3, 9d. Susquehanna Pit #11 was thirty by thirty-five inches in Broad blade from Dunn's excavation made of diameter and thirty-five inches deep. Charcoal gray chert and still coated with red ocher and a was scattered through the fill along with eight yellow pyrite encrustation, ge. stemmed knife of pieces of calcined bone. At the base was a two­ purple felsite from Pit #10 (deposit 2) one corner inch thick layer of red ochre in which a small of which was "killed" and restored by William hammer stone and a large Susquehanna point S. Fowler, and 9f. large Mansion Inn blade, were found (Figure 9a). Watertown variety, from Pit #2 made of Kineo rhyolite. Pit #12 was forty-two by sixty-six inches in diameter and thirty-three inches deep. Like Pit Figure 10 shows the four Mansion Inn blades, #10, there were several (six) distinct ochre Dudley variety, and two stemless knives found deposits at different levels within the larger pit. in Pit #10 (deposits 3 and 4). Five of these are The first deposit contained a fire-making kit made of regional felsite; the example in the composed of a felsite striker and largely bottom row, right, is a one brown quartzite. disintegrated pyrites. The second produced Also shown below are the five flake knives of only a small felsite scraper. The third contained purple felsite from Pits #9 and #10. a small quantity of calcined bone, a grooved adze, another fire-making kit and a fire Figure 11 (see next page) shows the nine damaged Susquehanna point. The fourth Susquehanna Broad points from Pits #3, #10, #12 deposit included three Susquehanna points, and #13, plus two from Dunn's feature All are one of Pennsylvania jasper, the other two of made of local felsi te except for one (top row, felsite and showing fire damage. The fifth left) which is of brown jasper. Also pictured in contained a few pieces of calcined bone but no the middle row, right, is a felsite striker and artifacts. The last deposit within Pit #12 below that, the block of hematite from Dunn's contained only an additional fire-making kit. excavation. The bottom row also contains the

Pit #13 was twenty-four by forty-six inches Figure 10. Five flake knives, top row. Six Mansion in diameter and forty-three inches deep. Inn knives from Pit 10. Like Pit # 11, it had charcoal flecks and small fragments of calcined bones scattered through the fill. Three inches of red ochre covered the bottom. Near the bottom was a fire-making kit and five Susquehanna points, all made of felsite and fire damaged.

The following figures show the similarity between the artifacts recovered from these secondary burials and those found during Dunn's excavation. Figure 9 illustrates six important bifaces. From left to right these include: 9a. large Susquehanna Broad point from Pit #11 made of bluish-gray rhyolite possibly from a Pennsylvania source, 9b. Boats blade from Dunn's feature. This knife was broken in four pieces and glued together. It is made of felsite that has been burned to a kaolin 5 G 56 Taylor: Review of Transitional Archaic Mortuary Features We will probably never know for sure. The secondary burials may represent later interments. Perhaps this location was used over a long period of time like the Millbury III site in Central Massachusetts that was used as a mortuary site for nearly 1,000 years between 3,985± to 2,870±150 B.P. (Leveillee 1999).

Why were so many of the secondary burials'empty'? While all the secondary burials had red ochre, some contained calcined bone, charcoal and artifacts. Others had artifacts but no evidence of remains. Do these clifferences reflect status? Or was the body not present and lost in battle or at sea? Perhaps this was only a symbolic ceremony performed on the Figure 11. Adclitional Susquehanna Broad-style points anniversary of an event or death. and drills from Dunn's feature and the related secondary burials. See text for details. Was Dunn's feature a crematory? In spite of the charcoal and obvious five drills from Dunn's excavation. Four of evidence of burning, it may be that the these are felsite and one is of black flint. cremations occurred elsewhere on the site, and that the still-hot ashes, charcoal and burned Discussion objects were transported to the burial pits for final interment. Dincauze has suggested that The combination of the large burial feature this was the case at Locus 1, Mansion Inn, a excavated by Dunn and the secondary burials large funerary pit similar to the one Dunn we cliscovered provide important information excavated (Dincauze 1968:51). In addition, there about Susquehanna tradition mortuary was no evidence of fire-reddened subsoil at practices. They also raise a number of either Dunn's feature or the secondary burials. questions. Such evidence would certainly have been present if the cremations had occurred in place. Were there additional secondary burials Another unreported excavation from the site present? has a bearing on this. In July 1969, Jim Deetz It seems likely that the bulldozing on the east and a crew from Plirnoth Plantation spent three side of Dunn's feature destroyed other burials. weeks excavating at the Seaver Farm site. While As Figure 1 shows, there was certainly room for a report of their findings was never completed, I six or more secondary burials on that side. did have the opportunity to observe one Dunn's description that "rows of fire pits" important feature they discovered. could be traced as the tractor turned over the Approximately 100 feet south of where Dunn's sod also hints that other burials were there. feature and the secondary burials were located, (Dunn 1942:33). Deetz' crew uncovered a large area of fire­ reddened sand. This area ofburned subsoil was What was the relationship between Dunn's three feet deep and although it is unknown burial pit and the secondary burials that what Deetz' crew found, I recovered four cross­ surrounded it? mending fragments from the base of a BULLETI OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 57

Figure 12. A sample of Susquehanna-related points and bifaces from the Seaver Farm - TIticut area.

soapstone bowl before the area was backfilled. appears to be an important burial site that may have been used over a period of time. The Was this a mortuary location only? artifacts indicate the presence of a large amount Although Susquehanna tradition people used of exotic material - chert, argillite and jasper ­ the Seaver Farm site for mortuary purposes, from New York, New Jersey or eastern they appear to have lived in the area as well. Pennsylvania. The presence of a large burial Susquehanna-related points and large bifaces feature, secondary burials and a likely have been found not only at the Seaver Farm crematory is unusual and has not been reported site but also at nearly every site along this in Massachusetts before. Unfortunately, we will portion of the Taunton River as well as its never know how much more information has tributary brooks. Figure 12 shows a sample of been lost. these points. They are made from a range of regionallithics. Acknowledgements

Conclusion I would like to thank Jeff Boudreau for his assistance in sorting out the fragments from Although Dunn's excavation at Seaver Farm Dunn's excavation as well as for his help with was not done or reported properly, it still photography. represents a significant contribution to our understanding of Susquehanna tradition mortuary practices. Like Mansion Inn, it 58 Taylor: Review of Transitional Archaic Mortuary Features References Cited

Dincauze, Dena F. 1968 Cremation Cemeteries in Eastern Massachusetts. The Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA. 1975 The Late Archaic Period in Southern New England. Arctic Anthropology. The University of Wisconsin Press 12(2):23-24. Dunn, Gerald C. 1942 Indians in Bridgewater. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society3(3): 31 - 33. Leveillee, Alan 1999 Transitional Archaic Ideology as Reflected in Secondary Burials at the Millbury III Cremation Complex. Archaeology ofEastern North America 27:157-183. Lord, Arthur C. 1962 The Hawes Site: A Burial Stone Bowl Complex. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society 23(3­ 4):21. Taylor, William B. 1970 Seaver Farm Red Paint Burials. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society 31 (3,4):1 -8. 1972 Seaver Farm Cremation Burials. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society33 (3,4):1 - 9. This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 59 Re-Assessing Wapanucket: Paleolndians in Southeast MA

James W. Bradley and Jeff Boudreau

Abstract Background

Since first reported in American Antiquity The Wapanucket site is located along the (1964), Wapanucket has been one of the best northeastern shore of Assawompsett Lake in the known Paleolndian sites in southern New town of Middleboro, Plymouth County, England. The site is located in Middleboro, MA Massachusetts. An initial environmental and contains components that span virtually all reconstruction suggests that the Paleo of the region's long and complex cultural component was situated on a large dune formed history. Given its artifactual similarities to the from windblown sands that originated in the Bull Brook site, Wapanucket has usually been adjacent proglacial lakebed. During the 1960s, assigned to the Early Paleo (Gainey) period. the Massachusetts Archaeological Society under Recent re-examination of the assemblage the direction of Maurice Robbins excavated indicates that, with its preponderance of non­ much of the site. PaleoIndian material was local lithics, Wapanucket is one of the region's recovered from two parts of the site. The early PaleoIndian sites. However, the range of primary component, referred to as Locus 8, projectile point styles recovered suggests that occurred along the crest of the dune and was PaleoIndians also used this location at several spread over an area roughly 160 by 28 meters times during the period 13,000 to 10,000 years (Robbins 1980:272). A second but poorly ago. defined locus of Paleo material, known as the Beach component, was located several hundred meters to the west along the lakeshore (Figure 1). Robbins and Agogino published an initial description of the site in 1964. Robbins provided a more detailed report in 1980.

8 The Paleo component at Locus 8 appears to have had little internal organization. Robbins notes that no evidence t of stratification was \ ""I' found and that Archaic .',I" and Paleo artifacts were frequently intermixed. --W"t- OWL SWAMP Although Robbins re­ ported six concentra­ tions of debitage, label­ Figure 1. Plan of Wapanucket Site (after Robbins 1980 frontispiece). ed A through F, he cautioned that these Copyright © 2006 James W. Bradley and Jeff Boudreau 60 Bradley and Boudreau: Re-assessing Wapanucket

NORTH

Fe ...... - .... / " SCALE • [!) j/--,.- [!) (\ //-\ \ 25 IKTERS , \ AREA "0" \/\ FE•20 I • I J ,.c'" rE." I ' .... ) I \ ,_ .... ,------T • I illJXL.. 1 1 I Al£A "A" \ I" I ' I AREA "EO 1 I\\ l!.!J " AREA "F" / [!] [!] [!) \I .....[!]?"I r" " 1 I "_I ...... /,,/ 22 ..... •I, '.... I IAR£A ~ I __ _--"" 1 ,'.... / I I \ ..... - ...... - I • I [!) \ AREA "8"', I ~----. ill [!] ." ' { FE ZOT Ill4PANUCKET-B. SECTIONS A, 8. CANDO - PALEO AREAS ')I" THROUGH OF" I- I'l4lEO FLAKES • Figure 2" Plan of Paleo locus, Wapanucket 8 (after Robbins 1980:272, Figure 85). were "purely arbitrary" and not intended to actually recovered. Even now, material from the represent living floors or workshops like the site continues to surface. "hotspots" at Bull Brook (Robbins 1980:272). See Figure 2. Robbins also observed that, Methodology although poorly documented, the Paleo artifacts from the Beach locus "differ radically Our goals in this article are twofold. The first is from those found at Locus #8" (ibid., p. 306). to compile as accurate and complete an Thus, it appears that at least two different inventory of the Paleo-related material found at PaleoIndian components were present at Wapanucket as possible. In order to reconstruct Wapanucket. the assemblage, all the surviving records have been examined. These include cards completed Robbins and Agogino included an initial by excavators in the field, paper and computer description of the Locus 8 assemblage in their catalog records and the notes from past surveys article reporting six fluted points (of which only of the collection, notably the 1980 MHC one was complete), eleven channel flakes, inventory conducted at the Bronson Museum in fifteen scrapers and five gravers (1964:512). Attleboro (Carty 1980). This written record was Robbins compiled a more complete inventory then compared with the surviving artifacts. The as part of his 1980 report on the overall site. results are summarized in Table 1. In general, His summary included ten fluted points (two of which were complete), twelve end scrapers, Beach nine gravers, eight knives and one drill Artifa.ct type Locus 8 component Totals (1980:272-76). Unfortunately these totals do not fluted points 11 4* 15 agree Robbins' with the more detailed, area by other bifaces 3 2 5 area inventory of artifacts that followed (ibid. pp. 276-83). Late Paleo points 0 2 2 endscrapers 10 2 12 The changing nature of the artifact inventory sidescrapers 3 0 3 illustrates much about the nature of the excavation. Fieldwork continued off and on channel flakes 5 0 5 over a period of at least ten years. Volunteers gravers 5 1 6 did most of the excavation and, as a result, cores 2 ] 3 record keeping was variable. By tradition, other"" 8 3 11 excavators could keep the artifacts they found. This, as well as unauthorized digging and Totals 47 15 62 collecting around the site, make it impossible to "reported but not seen; **prmwI'Ily debltage know how much PaleoIndian material was Table 1. Inventory of PaleoIndian Artifacts from Wapanucket. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 61 most of the diagnostic Paleo artifacts appear to also determined that the white quartz base have survived, although some pieces are reported by Robbins (8-3842) was not of missing. The situation is less clear in terms of PaleoIndian origin. In addition, one fluted debitage and non-diagnostic objects. Of perform from the surface of Locus 5 was particular interest are several artifacts not recorded. However, it is not included in this mentioned in either of the earlier reports; these total. Contrary to the previous reports, there are provide important new evidence for no complete fluted points; all are fragments or interpreting this site. That is our second goal ­ reworked fragments. These include six bases, to offer a current assessment of Wapanucket three tips and two fragments of points that were and its relationship to other PaleoIndian sites in split longitudinally (Figure 3, see next page). Massachusetts and the broader New England­ These are small points ranging from 1.7 to 2.9 Maritimes region. cm wide with an average of 2.4 cm. Bases are only slightly concave, between 2-3 mm in deep. Assemblage from Locus 8 Although the previous reports termed these "Clovis", the points from Locus 8 were fluted Fluted Bifaces from an isolated, prepared platform rather than Robbins and Agogino report six fluted points, a beveled edge. All appear to have single flutes five of which were gray-green chert; one of on each side. Of the eleven, two have straight these was "complete". The sixth was a fluted sides, three have slightly projecting basal ears point base 'red jasper'. These points were and one has prominent basal ears. The described as resembling "small Clovis points" remaining five examples are too fragmentary to and characterized by "deep concave bases", determine the shape of the sides and base. lateral and basal grinding, multiple fluting and prominent basal ears on five of the six examples Technically and stylistically, these points most (1964:512). Robbins lists ten fluted points in his resemble the Early PaleoIndian Gainey and Wapanucket report, eight of "marine chert", one Butler points of the Great Lakes region (Ellis of red jasper and one of white quartz (1980:274). and Deller 1997; Simons 1997). Fluted points from the Gainey site are generally large and We found documentation for eleven fluted characterized by parallel sides, simple arc­ points from Locus 8 although two of these (8­ shaped basal concavities of moderate depth and 348,8-1749) are currently missing (Table 2). We broad, short flutes that extend between 1/3 and 1/2 the length of the point. At the nearby # Catalog # Description Area Lithic Butler site, the fluted 1 8-249 base with prominent ears C? Mt. Jasper rhyolite? points had a slightly different shape - one 2 8-343 base with slight ears C Normanskill chert with more incurvate 3 8-348 base with no ears ? Norman.c;kill chert than parallel sides and 4 8-822 re-worked tip B dark gra\, chert slightly projecting basal ears. Don Simons has 5 8-1223 re-tipped base with slight ears C Normanskill chert argued that the Butler 6 8-1519 split longitudinally B Normanskill chert site represents an inter­ 7 8-1749 re-tipped base with no ears ? Normanskill chert mediate time period 8 8-1816 base with slight ears B Munsungun red chert between the Early PaleoIndian Gainey 9 8-3415 tip ? Normanskill chert and the Mid Paleo­ 10 8-3753 tip ? light grav chert Indian Parkhill type 11 8-7367 split longitudinally C Normanskill chert sites, an argument supported by the Table 2. Fluted Points from Locus 8. observation that the 62 Bradley and Boudreau: Re-assessing Wapanucket

Figure 3. Bifaces from Locus 8. Note that the fluted preform, second from right, bottom row, is from Locus 5

mean width of channel flakes from Butler falls of Normanskill chert, a small ovate knife of red between those from the Gainey and Parkhill jasper (8-1758) and finely made knife or sites (Simons 1997; 2002). Within the New unfluted point of a high grade, translucent England-Maritimes region, points of both brown chalcedony (8-377) that is visually similar styles have been termed "Bull Brook" points to the Knife River chert of North Dakota. (Spiess et aI1998:235-36). Although this unusual piece is not listed in earlier reports, a field record of its recovery does In terms of lithic material, the majority of these exist verifying this biface as a legitimate part of points (seven) are made from a gray/green to the Locus 8 assemblage. With the exception of tan chert that is a visual match to the a "possible drill" mentioned by Robbins ormanskill cherts of Hudson Valley. Two (1980:272), the previous investigators did not others are a gray chert, possibly Eastern report other bifaces from the site. Onondaga. Of the remaining two, one is a dull red chert, probably Munsungun, while the Cores other is a heavily weathered, banded rhyolite, In their inventory, Robbins and Agogino listed possibly Mt. Jasper. Lithic materials are "two small cores with multiple flake scars [that] discussed in greater detail below. indicate that blades were removed and used" (1964:512). Robbins notes only one "polyhedral Unfluted Bifaces core" from Area C in his site report (1980:278). We recorded three unfluted bifaces from Locus We located two artifacts that appear to meet the 8 (Figure 3). These include a large, definition of polyhedral or wedge-shaped cores asymmetrical (or ear-shaped) knife (8-6870-1) (Figure 4, left and center). One (8-416) has a BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 63 polyhedral shape with six to seven facets from End scrapers. We identified ten end scrapers in blade removals and appears to have been re­ our inventory. With one exception (8-1734), used as a piece esquilJee which shattered the these are all small in size, roughly 2 em wide by distal end. This piece is made from a high 3 em long. All have one or two "graving spurs". grade, lustrous light gray chert that is visually Seven (8-917, 8-1254, 8-1336, 8-1595, 8-1696, 8­ similar to the Vanport chert of eastern Ohio. 1717, 8-1734) are made from tan to gray/green The second artifact (8-655) is a more irregular, Normanskill chert, two (8-914, 8-1271) are of six-sided wedge-shaped core that has also seen gray chert and one (8-1445) of brown jasper. considerable battering. It is made of a dark Flake knives. One artifact (8-1811) is best gray chert that is visually identical to the characterized as a flake knife. Made from a Onondaga cherts of central and eastern New large bifacial thinning flake of yellow jasper, this York. piece has well-defined edge wear on all sides. Spokeshaves. One artifact (8-747) is identified Unifaces as a "spokeshave" in the records. This is a Robbins and Agogino report fifteen chert bifacial thinning flake of light gray chert that scrapers, thirteen of which were sufficiently shows some evidence of edge use. complete to describe. Although they did not Limaces. Although we did not observe any differentiate between side scrapers and end limaces in our inventory, Robbins (1980:276) scrapers, most appear to be the latter (1964:512). mentions a re-used channel flake (8-1269, 8­ Robbins used the same basic description in his 1522) under "Knives". If verified, this piece site report (1980:272). would now be considered a limace. At present, Side scrapers. We identified three side scrapers only one of the two fragments (8-1522) could be in our inventory, one complete and two located. fragmentary. The complete example (8-1406, Gravers. Robbins and Agogino include five 1373-4) has a typically asymmetrical, or ear­ "gravers" in their inventory (1964:512). Robbins shaped, form with well-defined edge wear on listed nine examples in his report (1980:272). In all sides. Second example (8-2832) is the basal our inventory, we found five artifacts identified portion of a similarly shaped side scraper. The as "gravers". All are small bifacial thinning third piece is un-numbered and too flakes with one spur. Three (8-660, 8-2360, un­ fragmentary to characterize further. All three numbered) are of tan/green Normanskill chert, are made from tan to gray/green Normanskill one (8-1102) is of light gray chert, and one (un­ chert (Figure 5, see next page). numbered) is of brown jasper. Utilized flakes. Robbins noted that 'a large number' of marine chert and red jasper flakes were utilized but did not quantify this (1980:272).

Debitage Robbins reported that Locus 8 "contained hundreds of flakes, both large primary flakes and smaller secondary flakes, of marine chert and jasper", and observed that none of this distinctive Figure 4. Cores from Locus 8 and the Beach. debitage was found elsewhere on the site 64 Bradley and Boudreau: Re-assessing Wapanucket which have catalog numbers. Of these, four are gray/ green Normanskill chert, one is a slightly glossary black chert and one is Mt. Jasper rhyolite. Four of the six show some evidence of edge use, the other two do not. We did find one unlabelled bag that contained several hundred small trim flakes but were unable to count them. The vast majority of these flakes were tan to gray/ green Normanskill chert with a few red jasper examples also present. Although it is impossible to obtain a reliable quantitative assessment, we feel that Robbins' estimate of 80% tan/green chert and 20% red jasper is a good approx­ imation. Channel flakes. Robbins and Agogino listed eleven channel flakes from Locus 8 and suggested that these were evidence that points were fluted on the site (1964:512). Robbins noted Figure 5. Unifaces from Locus 8. ten channel flakes in his report but does not discuss (Robbins 1980:305-6). Robbins also provided them in any detail (1980:276-80). We were able debitage counts by area although these do not to locate only five examples in our inventory differentiate flakes by size or type (ibid. pp.276­ (Figure 5, third row, center). All are fragments. 83). These counts indicate a total of 1,230 flakes Four of these (8-397, 8-743, 8-1516, 8-1522) are of which 1,0356 (84%) are chert and 194 (16%) gray/ green Normanskill chert and came from are jasper. However, here again, different small to medium size points. They average 3.1 records tell a different story. For example, the em in length and 1.7 em wide. The fifth channel field cards for area A report 1/41 large flint flake (8-1089) is a glossy dark gray chert and chips", substantially more than the thirteen came from a much larger point; it is 4.1 em long listed by Robbins. More significant, the field and 2.2 em wide. cards for area B indicate that "92 flint and 123 jasper chips" were recovered, a completely Assemblage from the Beach Component different number than reported by Robbins. The Beach component is difficult to assess from We were unable to locate much of this debitage several reasons. It was never excavated or even in our inventory. Only six medium to large systematically collected. The published bifacial thinning flakes were found, five of accounts were based on what the authors had BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 65 been shown. Their assumption was that these Unfluted Bifaces artifacts found on the Beach had eroded from Four unfluted bifaces, all broken, appear to be the high bluff in front of Locus 6, however, since from the Beach component. One (8-B) is the summer cottages had been built along the top of distal section of a large, finely made point this bluff, no testing was done. Robbins does broken at both the tip and midsection. Although note that most of the artifacts from the Beach this, superficially, appears to be fluted on the were made from "brown-red-amber chert" and obverse side, the rings of compression indicate that only "a few examples of gray-green-black that this was not an intentional flute but the chert" were present (Robbins 1980:283). Our re­ probable result of an impact fracture. The examination of the material from Wapanucket material is a high-grade, dark gray chert with produced eleven artifacts that appear to be from white fossiliferous inclusions, similar to the the Beach component. While these all have "B" Clarendon chert on the Champlain Valley. Two labels or catalog numbers, there are no records other biface fragments are the basal ends of Late that identify them or how they were obtained. PaleoIndian points. The larger example (8-B46) We also found that many of the artifacts initially is made from a dark gray, banded chert reported from the Beach actually date from probably from Munsungun, ME while the other, later cultural period (ibid., pp. 284-85). smaller one (8-B33) is of gray Onondaga chert. Only the PaleoIndian-related materials are Traditionally, these parallel-sided points have discussed here. been called "Eden" points in Massachusetts (MHC 1984:58-59; Hoffman 1991:11-12). How­ Fluted Bifaces ever, with the identification of single component In his report, Robbins noted "four fluted points sites in Maine and the Canadian Maritimes, have been shown to us... These are bifacially these are now termed Ste. Anne/Varney points fluted, made of brown to amber chert and are of (Doyle et al 1985; Petersen et al 2000 ; Dumais the miniature variety reported from Locus #8" 2000). These two bases are illustrated in Figure (1980:283). Although Robbins used the term 6, right side. The final piece is a small, "chert", it is clear that he was referring to red nondescript biface fragment of Saugus jasper. and yellow jasper. He also observed that these points "tend to be slightly different in outline Cores and in fluting" than those from Locus 8 (ibid. p. One wedge-shaped core (B7) appears to have 306). Unfortunately, none of these points were been recovered from the Beach component. It is available for us to examine. quite similar to one of the examples from Locus 8. It is made of Saugus jasper and has a semi­ hemispherical shape with five distinct blade removals. It is 3.8 em long, 4 cm wide and 1.7 em thick ( Figure 4, right).

Unifacial Tools Five unifacial tools have catalog numbers that suggest they came from the Beach component (Figure 6). These include two endscrapers, one of Figure 6. Artifacts from the Beach Component. dark red jasper (BI0) 66 Bradley and Boudreau: Re-assessing Wapanucket and the other of yellow jasper (B28). The Our re-examination indicates both a more former has been fire shattered and is heavily diverse set of lithics and clearer sense of their spalled on both the dorsal and ventral sides. origin. For Locus 8, the predominant material is The latter also shows heavy use and has a a tan to green chert that is visually identical to distinctly narrowed proximal end that may the Normanskill chert of the mid Hudson Valley. have been used as a drill. Two additional This Ordovician chert is widely distributed in unifaces (B1 and B48) have been identified Greene, Columbia, Rensselaer and Washington tentatively as spokeshaves. Both are bifacial counties and known by several names including thinning flakes of brown jasper and show slight Coxsackie, Flint Mine Hill and Pleasantville. edge wear. The final uniface (B32) is identified Technically, these are part of the Mount Merino as a graver. This too is a thinning flake of formation (Funk 2004:133; Holland 2004:25). brown jasper that shows some slight signs of Based on personal observation, the artifacts of use. this chert from Wapanucket are virtually identical to those from Hudson Valley Debitage PaleoIndian sites such as West Athens Hilt No debitage from the Beach component was King's Road and Swale, a conclusion also located in our inventory. The possible reached by Robert Funk (Funk 1976:224). exception is a large bifacial thinning flake (B- ) of Saugus jasper that show much the same kind The second most common group of lithics from of edge wear as the two jasper 'spokeshaves' Locus 8 is a series of light gray to very dark described above. gray/black cherts. The majority of these are visually similar to central and eastern varieties Lithic Material of Onondaga chert. This Devonian chert described by Holland as the "most ubiquitous... There has been considerable confusion over the and widely used chert" in New York (Holland lithic materials recovered from Wapanucket. 2004:25). Although usually a minority lithic, Robbins and Agogino reported that the these gray cherts are also widely distributed on PaleoIndian artifacts were "made almost Paleo sites in New England. entirely from gray-green chert" that were "rich in marine organisms, principally radiolaria". The third most common set of lithics from Locus They noted that these were "almost identical" 8, and the predominant material at the Beach to samples of the Deepkill and Normanskill component, is jasper (yellow, brown and red) cherts from the Hudson Valley and speculated that probably originated in eastern that this was the source of the material. Pennsylvania (Hatch and Maxham 1995). There has been much discussion about possible local The exceptions were a few artifacts of gray sources for this material. For example, it has chert and a group of artifacts made from red or been suggest that these jaspers had a regional "honey-colored" jasper. A sample of this origin as glacial cobbles (Moeller 2002:92). material was submitted to Clifford Kaye of the However, the lack of decortification flakes or U. S. Geological Survey in Boston who any evidence of cobble reduction argues against determined that it did not resemble typical this. Robbins also suggested that the Conklin marine cherts and may have been formed in quarry in Rhode Island was a likely source of association "with volcanism" (1964:512). the Wapanucket jasper but, to date, a convincing Robbins continued to pursue sources for "the case has yet to be made. Indeed, if one plots the marine flint and thermal chert" with Clifford percentage of jasper in the artifact assemblages Kaye for several years. These efforts focused from the quarries in the Reading Prong to on possible offshore sourceS for the "marine Gainey-related sites in the Delaware valley sites flint" and sources in northeast Rhode Island for such as Plenge, 76% jasper, (Kraft 1973:64) and the "amber/ red cherts from the Beach Zierdt, 'mostly jasper' (Kraft, personal com­ component" (Robbins 1980:290-91, 283). munication 4/12/96 ), to Hudson Valley sites BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 67 such as Swale, 44% jasper (Funk 2004:107) and Brook and Spiller (Pelletier and Robinson 2005; on into New England, the distribution of jasper Pollock et al 1999). Distribution of this appears to provide a useful way to model the distinctive material also extends to the edges of movement of Early PaleoIndians into the the region and possibly beyond. This may be region. the "maroon jasper" described by Ritchie from the Davis site on Lake Champlain (Ritchie Taken together, these three lithic groups ­ 1965:21) and by Funk from Kings Road and Normanskill chert, Onondaga chert and Swale sites in the Hudson Valley (Funk Pennsylvania jasper - account for the vast 2004:107). majority, 80 to 90%, of all the Paleo material from Wapanucket. The only other regionallithics from Wapanucket are three artifacts of Saugus jasper, a biface Two of the Locus 8 artifacts are of an even more fragment, a wedge-shaped core and a thinning exotic origin -a blade core of Vanport chert and flake, all from the Beach locus. This material is a biface of Knife River chert. Although rare on well represented in Gainey-related Paleo PaleoIndian sites east of Pennsylvania, artifacts assemblages in eastern New England such as of Vanport (Flint Ridge) chert have been Bull Brook (Grimes et al 1984:168, Plate 6, #2-5) reported. Artifacts of this material were and the Hedden site in Maine (Spiess and recovered from both the Swale and King's Road Mosher 1994). Although often called "jasper", sites in the mid Hudson Valley (Funk 2004:107). this material is actually a fine-grained felsic rock Flint Ridge might also be the source of the that occurs as part of the Lynn volcanic series. 'white chalcedony' channel flake and debitage Given its visual similarity to the red variety of reported by Binzen from the Turners' Falls site jasper from eastern Pennsylvania, it becomes in the Connecticut Valley (Binzen 2005:55). easier to see why Clifford Kaye termed this an While Knife River chert, which originates in, atypical "thermal chert". North Dakota (Clayton et al. 1970), is a very unusual lithic material in the Northeast, other In sum, the two Paleo components at examples have been reported. These include an Wapanucket have substantially different lithic unfluted biface and three end scrapers from assemblages. The Locus 8 artifact assemblage Warren County, PA (Lanz 1984:213), a large (n=47) is dominated by Normanskill chert (62%) fluted biface and debitage from the Lamb, with other gray New York cherts second (19%), Genesee County, NY (Gramly 1999:40-41, 103), and Pennsylvania jasper third (8%). True and two artifacts, a flake knife and a large spall, exotics such as Knife River chert (2%) and Flint from the mid-Hudson Valley (Ted Filii, personal Ridge chert (2%) as well as regionallithics (6%) communication, 1/13/2005). are present only in small quantities. By contrast, the Beach component (n=15) contained no What is most surprising is how scarce regional Normanskill chert and· is dominated by lithics are in the Wapanucket assemblage. There Pennsylvania jasper (60%) with small amounts are only three examples from Locus 8 - a fluted of other cherts (20%) and Saugus jasper (20%). point base (#8-249) and a thinning flake that appear to be Mt. Jasper or Israel River rhyolite, Discussion and a fluted point base (#8-1816) of Munsungun red chert. While both these materials occur on Comparisons with Bull Brook other Paleo sites in the region, they usually Locus 8 at Wapanucket has often been occur as a much larger percentage of the total compared with the Bull Brook site and for good lithic assemblage. Mt. Jasper rhyolite occurs at reason. The two sites share many of the same Bull Brook and on several Paleo sites in New artifactual traits, especially in terms of fluted Hampshire (Boisvert 1998), while Munsungun points. On both sites, the points are a mix of red chert occurs on many PaleoIndian sites in Early PaleoIndian Gainey and Butler styles, and the New England-Maritime region, notably Bull share the same basic shapes (Figure 7). As 68 Bradley and Boudreau: Re-assessing Wapanucket discussed above, the latter have more Where were they going and why? prominent basal ears and longer flutes, some of While it is impossible to know, there are several which extend the full length of the point. possible hypotheses: However, there are many differences between Locus 8 and Bull Brook, aside from the obvious 1. Locus 8 was the site of an early group of size of the sites and their assemblages. The PaleoIndian migrants into the New England­ points from Locus 8 are substantially smaller Maritime region. The predominance of lithics than those from Bull Brook and more like the from the Hudson Valley, and even farther west, "stubby" fluted points from the Port Mobil supports this. Stylistically, however, the fluted sites (Kraft 1977). Locus 8 also has produced points are more typical of the late Gainey, or only broken and discarded point fragments Butler phase. Like Bull Brook, Locus 8 also has whereas the Bull Brook assemblage contains a a few points with what are generally considered substantial number of complete and usable Parkhill, or mid-Paleo, traits such as flutes that points. Locus 8 has no points with deeply run the complete length of the point and the indented bases (Debert-Vail style points) presence of prominent basal ears. These traits whereas Bull Brook does. In terms of other suggest that Locus 8, and perhaps Bull Brook as artifact classes, Locus 8 does not have drills, well, cannot be among the region's earliest sites. limaces or piece esquillee, all of which are well represented at Bull Brook. Conversely, Locus 8 2. A second hypothesis is that Locus 8 was the has small blade cores, a form not reported from site of a slightly later group of migrants into the Bull Brook. Finally, Locus 8 has a different set region. This would explain both the lithic and of lithics, one dominated by cherts from the the later stylistic traits. However, the presence Hudson Valley, in contrast to Bull Brook's mix of a few artifacts made from regional lithics of Munsung<.m chert, Mt. Jasper rhyolite and (Munsungun chert and Mt. Jasper rhyolite) other materials from the region (Pelletier and suggests that these were not new comers. Also, Robinson 2005:163). In this regard, Locus 8 is more like the Turners Falls site where 97% of the lithic assemblage was one material, jasper (Binzen 2005:55) and probably from Pennsylvania. However, in spite of their differences, we believe the assemblages from Locus 8 and Bull Brook have a similar feel, and perhaps represent different phases of the same pattern of movement within the region.

Where did they come from? Based on the lithic composition, we would argue that Locus 8 represents the movement of a band of Paleolndians who came from the mid-Hudson Valley, bringing with them a stock of Normanskill chert (both as large bifaces and finished tools) plus other New York cherts and Pennsylvania jasper as well as a few objects of more exotic material that had been acquired through exchange or long term curation (Vanport chert and Knife River chert). This hypothesis is supported· by the strong Bull Brook Wapanucket similarities in both tool forms and lithic preference on the sites of the West Athens Hill eM 1..'--"'_.1..-...... --1'5 cluster (Funk 2004). Figure 7. Comparison of fluted point shapes from Bull Brook and Locus 8. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 69 there is no natural or intuitive route from the mid-Hudson Valley to the interior of Southeast Massachusetts. This suggests that the people who went to Locus 8 had some idea of where they were headed.

3. We prefer a third hypothesis - that Wapanucket 8 was part of a specific, possibly band-related, pattern of movement in what is now southeastern New York and southern New England. This pattern of mobility was anchored in part by the rich lithic (and other) resources of the Hudson/Champlain Valley on the west and those of the Gulf of Maine to the east. This zone of movement appears to have extended south down the Hudson and possibly upper Delaware to include sites such as Port Mobil and Plenge, and east to include Long Island, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and Cape Cod as well as now inundated portions of the coastal plain (Figure 8). This area also fills some of the gap between the New England­ Maritimes region, as originally defined by Spiess and Wilson (1987:134, Figure 7.1) and a Figure 8. Wapanucket and related PaleoIndian sites: proposed pattern of PaleoIndian settlement on 1 - Wapanucket, 2 - Port Mobil, 3 - Plenge, and 4 ­ the Mid-Atlantic coastal plain (Custer et. al. West Athens Hill cluster 1983). Locus 8, so it is not possible to know with any Evidence in support of this hypothesis includes certainty. Nor have acceptable date been not only the strong similarities in lithics and reported from Bull Brook. However, the dates artifacts forms between Locus 8, the mid­ from the Younger Dryas climatic event are well Hudson Valley and Port Mobil sites, but the established. That event occurred between 12,900 probable presence of Munsungun red as and 11,600 cal yr BP and appears to correlate exhausted tools at the Swale and Kings Road with the use of fluted points in the New sites as well as at Locus 8. If confirmed as England-Maritimes region (Newby et. al. 2005). Munsungun, this would provide evidence of In addition, two radiocarbon dates have been east to west movement, something currently reported from the Hedden site: 10,500±60 and not documented in the New England­ 10,580±60 BP (Spiess et. al. 1995). These Maritimes region. The depleted quality of the calibrate to 12,478 and 12,744 years ago Locus 8 lithic assemblage also suggests that, respectively and provide a reasonable guess for while this group of PaleoIndians had when Locus 8 was occupied. replenished their supply of material in the mid­ Hudson Valley, it was time to restock. If this Conclusion assumption is correct, then perhaps the tool fragments of Munsungun chert and Mt. Jasper Consistent with the rest of the site, the rhyolite were the remnants of lithics acquired PaleoIndian presence at Wapanucket is multi­ earlier in the cycle of movement. component. The primary occupation occurred at Locus 8. With its late Gainey/Butler style When were they there? fluted points and diverse, non-local lithics, this No radiocarbon dates have been obtained from appears to be a single, brief occupation and very 70 Bradley and Boudreau: Re-assessing Wapanucket similar to Bull Brook. The Beach component thinning flakes as well as trim and channel represents some other Paleolndian presence. flakes behind. They also re-sharpened their Unfortunately, with its "different" but existing points discarding the tips and bases undefined fluted points and unusual lithic that were no longer usable. This suggests that, assemblage, this component remains a mystery. wherever they were headed next, replenishing The presence of two Ste Anne/Varney point their supply of lithic material was a priority. bases indicates a Late Paleolndian presence on Our guess is that they may have been headed the site as well. towards the Boston Basin, or even Bull Brook.

We suggest that the Gainey/Butler phase Acknowledgements occupation represents the movement of a band of PaleoIndians who came from the mid­ The authors would like to thank Ted Filli for Hudson Valley, bringing with them a stock of information on Paleolndian sites in the mid­ Normanskill chert plus othe chert and jasper Hudson Valley. We would also like to tools as well as a few objects of more exotic acknowledge the late Herb Kraft for his material. They also may have continued to observations on the Zierdt site and the written carry a few artifacts made from lithics that comments made by the late Fred Carty on the originated in the New England-Maritimes Wapanucket assemblage -during the MHC region (Munsungun chert and Mt. Jasper Survey of the Bronson Museum in 1980. rhyolite) acquired earlier in the cycle of movement. At Locus 8 they made new fluted points from Normanskill chert leaving large

References Cited

Binzen, Tunothy 2005 The Turners Falls Site: An Early PaleoIndian Presence in the Connecticut Valley. Bulletin ofthe Massachusetts Archaeological Society 66(2):46-57. Boisvert, Richard A 1998 The Israel River Complex: A PaleoIndian Manifestation in Jefferson, New Hampshire. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26:97-106. Carr, Kurt, and James Adovasio 2002 Ice AgePeoples ofPennsylvania. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology No.2, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA Carty, Frederick 1980 Notes on the Wapanucket Paleo assemblage. On file with the author. Clayton, Lee, W. B. Bickley, Jr. and W. J. Stone 1970 Knife River Flint. Plains Anthropologist15:282-290. Custer, Jay F., John A Cavallo, and R. Michael Stewart 1983 Lithic Procurement and Paleo-Indian settlement patterns on the Middle Atlantic coastal plain. North America Archaeologist4:263-275. Doyle, Richard A, Nathan D. Hamilton, James B. Petersen, and David Sanger 1985 Late Paleo-Indian Remains from Maine and Their Correlations in Northeastern Prehistory. Archaeologyof Eastern North America 13:1-34. Dumais, Pierre 2000 The La Martre and Mitis Late PaleoIndian Sites. Archaeology ofEastern North America 28:81-112. Ellis, Christopher J. and D. Brian Deller 1997 Variability in the Archaeological Record of Northeastern Early PaleoIndians: A View from Southern Ontario. Archaeology on Eastern North America 25:1-30. Funk, Robert E. 1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. New York State Museum Memoir 22, Albany, NY. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 71

2004 An Ice Age Quarry-Workshop: The West Athens Hill Site Revisited. New York State Museum Bulletin 504, Albany,NY. Funk, Robert E. and Charles F. Hayes III, eds. 1977 Current Perspectives in Northeastern Archaeology: Essays in Honor ofWilliam A. Ritchie. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association XVII (1), Rochester, NY. Gramly, R Michael 1999 The Lamb Site: A Pioneering Clovis Encampment. Persimmon Press, Kenmore NY Grimes, John R et al 1984 Bull Brook II. Archaeology ofEastern North America 12:159-183. Hatch, James W. and Mintcy D. Maxham 1995 Jasper-Bearing Assemblages in Pennsylvania: Implications for the Antiquity and Scale of Regional Exchange. Archaeology ofEastern North America 23:231-245. Hoffman, Curtiss R, ed. 1991 A Handbook ofIndian Artifacts from Southern New England. Massachusetts Archaeological Society Special Publication #4 Middleborough, MA. Holland, John D. 2004 Lithic Types and Varieties of New York State. The Bulletin, Journal ofthe New York State Archaeological Association No. 120: 17-36. Kraft, Herbert C. 1973 The Plenge Site: A PaleoIndian Occupation Site in New Jersey. Archaeology ofEastern North America 1:56-117. ~ 1977 The Paleo-Indian Sites at Port Mobil, Staten Island. In, Funk and Hayes 1977:1-19. 1996 personal communication, 4/12/96 Lanz, Stanley W. 1984 Distribution of Paleo-Indian Projectile Points and Tools from Western Pennsylvania: Implications for Regional Differences. Archaeology ofEastern North America 12:210-230. Massachusetts Historical Commission 1984 A Guide to Prehistoric Site Files and Artifact Classification System. Boston, MA. Moeller, Roger W. 2002 Paleoi.ndian Settlement Pattern: Just a Stone's Throw from the Lithic Source. In, Carr and Adovasio 2002: 91-96. Newby, Paige, James Bradley, Arthur Spiess, Bryan Shuman and Phillip Leduc 2005 A PaleoIndian Response to Younger Dryas climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews 24:141-54. Pelletier, Bertrand G. and Brian S. Robinson 2005 Tundra, Ice and a Pleistocene Cape on the Gulf of Maine. Archaeology ofEastern North America 33:163­ 176. Petersen, James B., Robert N. Bartone, and Belinda Cox 2000 The Varney Farm Site and the Late PaleoIndian Period in Northeastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 28:113-140. Pollock, Stephen G., Nathan D. Hamilton and Robson Bonnichsen 1999 Chert from the Munsungan Lake Formation (Maine) in Paleoamerican Archaeological Sites in Northeastern North America: Recognition of its Occurrence and Distribution. Journal ofArchaeological Science 26:269-293. Ritchie, William A. 1965 The Archaeology ofNew York State. Natural History Press, Garden City NY. Robbins, Maurice 1980 ftVapanucket: An Archaeological Report. Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Attleboro, MA. Robbins, Maurice and George Agogino 1964 The Wapanucket No.8 Site: A Clovis-Archaic Site in Massachusetts. American Antiquity29 (4):509-513. Simons, Donald B. 1997 The Gainey and Butler Sites as Focal Points for Caribou and People. In Jackson, Lawrence J. and Paul Thacker, Caribou and Reindeer Htmters ofthe Nortl1ern Hemisphere. Aldershot, Avebury, UK pp. 105­ 131. 72 Bradley and Boudreau: Re-assessing Wapanucket

2001 Additional Data on the Late Pleistocene Peoples of the Lower Great Lakes. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation. Watertown, NY. Spiess, Arthur E., James w. Bradley and Deborah Wilson 1998 Paleoindian Occupation in the New England-Maritimes Regions: Beyond Cultural Ecology. Archaeology ofEastern North America 26:201-64. Spiess, Arthur E., and John Mosher 1994 Hedden: A Paleoindian Site on the Kennebunk Plains. Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin 34(2):25-54. Spiess, Arthur E., John Mosher, K. Callum and Nancy A. Sidell 1995 Fire on the Plains: Paleoenvironmental Data from the Hedden Site. Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin 35(1):13-52. Spiess, Arthur E. and Deborah B. Wilson 1987 Michaud: A Paleoindian Site in the New England-Maritimes Region. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology, No.6. Maine Historic Preservation Commission. Augusta, ME. This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society.

BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 73 Hoes, Digging Implements or Heavy Scrapers?

Bernard A. Otto

Most contributions to the Bulletin focus on or basalt. projectile points in one form or another. This article discusses something different - the While most collectors would not give these tools rough stone tools that rarely get much attention. a second glance, I find them interesting because While these artifacts are anything but classy, they were everyday tools, like hammer stones, they were an important part of the tool kit used and essential for a variety of tasks. My sense is by Native people in Southeast Massachusetts that these were used primarily as digging tools, during the Late Archaic period. for excavating hearths and earth ovens as well as pits for storage, the disposal of refuse, and Early excavators in the region called these other necessities. They were probably used for rough stone tools "'hoes", largely for want of a digging roots and tubers as well. While it is better name. Generally these tools are ovate in possible that some of the smaller examples were shape and range from small examples, 2" by 3" hafted and used as hide scrapers, I believe that to large ones up to 12" long. They were most of these artifacts were digging implements chipped to shape by direct percussion with and used unhafted with a two-handed grip. special attention paid to the sharp rounding of the front edge (Figure 1). The majority of In sum, these stone tools were the equivalent of examples are made from metamorphosed our shovels and hand trowels. As such they are sandstone or arkosite, a very tough and durable an important part of the archaeological record material. A few are made from slabs of traprock and are certainly worthy of more detailed study.

Figure 1. A sample of rough stone digging tools from sites in Plymouth and Kingston, MA.

Copyright © 2006 Bernard A. Otto This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society.

74 Winter and Bellantoni: In Memorium

In Memorium: Douglas F. Jordan, 1925-2006

I met Douglas F. Jordan in 1954 at a meeting of the dissertation was completed, a chapter at a the Northeast Chapter of the MAS. He was a time. Doug successfully defended his graduate student at Harvard, studying dissertation entitled The Bull Brook site in archaeology and interested in New England relation to "Fluted Point" manifestations in prehistory. We became friends almost eastern North America in 1960. That work immediately and, soon after, he became my continues to serve as a classic in our mentor. During our long discussions on local understanding of PaleoIndians in the Northeast. and regional archaeology, he provided me with course outlines and reading lists from his Once he received his degree, Doug began to classes at Harvard and introduced me to books move on to other things. However, this did not and journals, such as American Antiquity. mean he forgot his friends in the Northeast Before I even knew what "a collector" was, Chapter. In fact, when hired to do survey work Doug cautioned me not to become one and outside the area, Doug left four pages of explained what I might do instead. instructions on how to run the Chapter in his absence, just in case we forgot anything. We Doug lived in Wakefield and introduced me to could also count on Doug to give really others with a serious interest in archaeology ­ interesting talks upon his return. This was men like Dr. Ernest Tyzzer, Bill Eldridge, the especially the case after he worked on an Vaccaro brothers and the rest of the "Bull Brook excavation near Point Barrow, Alaska. boys". He told me about previous research that had been done in the area, especially by Ripley Doug was the kind of person everyone liked Bullen, who had left Massachusetts for a job in because he was so generous and always willing Florida, and the huge impact that his departure to share his knowledge. He was a great friend had had on the Northeast Chapter and the MAS and teacher and although I will miss him, I will in general. In many ways, it was Doug who never forget him. filled the gap left by Bullen's absence. Eugene Winter As a result of his friendship with Bill Eldridge and the Vaccaro brothers, Doug decided to study the PaleoIndian artifacts from Bull Brook for his doctoral dissertation. Many Wednesday evenings were spent in Beverly talking with the "Bull Brook boys" about the site and what it might mean. I was often allowed to sit in and learned a great deal during those meetings.

As Doug began to produce chapter drafts, he would bring them over to my house in nearby Stoneham so that my wife, Pearl, and I could review them. We read them with pleasure and talked, even argued about certain points. Pearl was an excellent editor and also reviewed each draft for spelling and word choice. Doug would listen to our comments then make the changes he felt were appropriate. In this way, This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society.

BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 75

Douglas F. Jordan received his BA from longtime membership in the Massachusetts Dartmouth College in 1949. He later earned his Archaeological Society. Doug's work with the MA and PhD in anthropology from Harvard amateur community set the stage for both University. Prior to his appointment to the archaeological societies to develop good University of Connecticut in 1963, he was an working relationships between professional and archaeologist for the National Park Service, and avocational archaeologists in New England. at the Florida State Museum. At the University of Connecticut, he accepted a position teaching Nicholas F. Bellantoni in the Anthropology Department, and was also appointed the first State Archaeologist of Connecticut. In addition, he served as Curator of the University's anthropological collections and played an important role in helping them grow. For example, Doug was responsible for bringing the Norris L. Bull Collection of pre­ Contact and Contact Native American artifacts to UConn.

He was a prominent and active instructor of undergraduates and graduates. He was personally responsible for the education of an entire generation of archaeologist, many of which are active professionally in the field today. Doug directed the UConn summer field school teaching archaeological techniques and methods for more than a quarter of a century.

His intellectual and research interests fell into two distinct categories. The first is the prehistoric archaeology of eastern North America, and New England in particular. He excavated and conducted research at the Bull Brook, Schwartz, Woodchuck Knoll and Hollister Sites among many. His second, but not lesser, interest was in primitive technology ­ from stone tools to ceramics to metallurgy, from watercraft to weapons to cooking vessels.

Doug served for more than two decades as the Connecticut State Archaeologist, and was the most visible leader of the professional and amateur archaeologists in the state. He served the Archaeological Society of Connecticut consecutively as Program Chairman, Newsletter Editor, and President. He also continued his This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society.

76 INDEX: Volumes 61-66, 2000-2006 Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society INDEX Volumes 61-66 2000-2005

AUTHOR, TITLE AND SUBJECT INDEX

An Index for Volumes 1 to 38 may be found in Volume 38(4). The index for Volumes 39 to 48 is in 48:60-71, for Volumes 49 to 53 in 53:67-75, and for Volume 54 to 60 in 61:61-72.

AUTHOR INDEX

B Binzen, Timothy, 2004, Native American Settlement in the Upper Housatonic During the Woodland Period} 65:29-38; 2005, An Early PaleoIndian Presence in the Connecticut River Valley, 66:46-57 Boudreau, Jeff, 2005, The Rubin Farm Site, Norton, MA, 66:34-43 Brady, Philip, 2001, Wampumpeag: Its Role as Currency in Massachusetts, 62:29-30

C Calogero, Barbara and Joyce Clements, 2001} Reminiscences of Dr. Barbara E. Luedtke, 62:4 Carovillano, Jeffrey Robert, 2003, Adaptation and Resistance: A Contact Period Component at Den Rock, Lawrence, MA, 64(1):28 Chandler, Jim, 2001, On the Shore of a Pleistocene Lake: the Wamsutta Site (19-NF-70), 62:52-62 Chartier, Craig S., 2004, A Contact Period Fishing Point of Cow Bone from Grape Island, Boston Harbor, MA,65:25-28. Chilton, Elizabeth, Thomas Ulrich and Niels Rinehart, A Re-examination of the Deerfield Industrial Park Survey, 66:58-66 Choquet, Mark, 2001, In Memoriam: Great Moose (Russell Herbert Gardner), 62:34-38 Clements, Joyce M., 2002, Moving Beyond Irrelevant Relativism: Reflections on the Women from Ponkapoag Praying Town, Massachusetts, 63:44-50 Concannon, Mary T., 2002, The Keene-Hayes Site, Auburn, Maine: A Multidisciplinary Learning Experience, 63:66-77

D Davis, Jic, 2000, What are these Artifacts? 61:60 Dincauze, Dena F., 2004, Betty Little: An Appreciation, 65:39 Donta, Christopher L., 2003, The Oak Knoll Site: An Orient Campsite in Lincoln, MA,64(2):12-21; 2005, The Neponset Site, Locus 4: More Evidence of a Michaud-Neponset Phase Occupation, 66:76-87 Doucette} Dianna L., 2005, Reflections of the Middle Archaic: A View from Annasnappet Pond, 66:22-33 Dudek, Martin G., 2005, The Whortleberry Hill Site: An Early Holocene Camp in Dracut, MA, 66:12-21; and Craig S. Chartier, 2004, The Tall Pines Rockshelter} Clinton, MA and Rockshelter Use During the Late Woodland and Contact Periods, 65:18-24

F Fairbanks, Kathryn, 2001, In Memoriam: Great Moose (Russell Herbert Gardner), 62:39

G Gage, Mary E., 2003, Some Observations on Caddy Park, 64(2):22-27 Gardner, Russell H. (Great Moose), 2000, The Documented Record of Ousemequin's Year of Death and the Naming of his sons, 61:11; 2001, The Many-Storied Danson Stone of Middleborough} Massachusetts, 62:44-45 BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 77 H Hoffman, Curtiss, 2004, Symbols in Stone, Part Two: Quartz Ceremonial Items From the Little League Site, Middleborough, MA, 65:63-72

I Ives, Timothy H., 2003, Rediscovering the Atlatl: Observations on the Dynamics of Atlatl Design and Operation Based on Experimentation, 64(1):2-9

J Johnson, Eric S., 2003, Forest Management in the Ancient Northeast: Evidence from Stockbridge, MA, 64(2):2-9

K Kaeser} Edward L 2004, Making the Case for the Abbott Complex: The Bird Rock Site, Pelham Bay, NY, 65:53-60 Kerber, Jordan E., 2002, Interpreting Diverse Marine Shell Deposits of the Woodland Period in Southern New England: Interrelationships among Subsistence, Symbolism, and Ceremonialism, 63:24-35

L Largy, Tonya Baroody and Duncan Ritchie, 2002, Local Lithic Materials in Archaic Technologies: Mylonite and Amphibolite from the Castle Hill Site, Wayland, Massachusetts, 63:51-65 Leveillee, Alan, 2001} Public Archaeology, The New Age, and Local Truths, 62:23-28; 2001, Discovery and Rediscovery of a Remnant 17th Century Narragansett Burial Ground in Warwick} Rhode Island, 62:46-51; 2003, Evidence of Red Ocher as a Processed Commodity from Millbury and Charlton, MA, 64(2):10-11; and Joseph N. Waller, Jr., 2003, "1 Can't Read So Good, But I Like Archaeology", Tony c.: An Educational and Public Outreach Project in the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, 64(1): 14-19 Luedtke, Barbara E., 2000, Archaeology on the Boston Harbor Islands after 25 Years, 61:2-11

M MacIntyre, John, 2001, The Blue Heron Site, Marshfield, Massachusetts (19-PL-847), 62:63-67 Mahlstedt, Thomas and Margo Muhl Davis, 2002, Caddy Park, Wollaston Beach, Quincy, Massachusetts: Burial? Cenotaph? Cache? Or Offering?, 63:11-23; 2003} A Reply to Gage, 64(2):28-29 Moody, William E., 2001, An Unusual Plummet-Like Object from Mary's Landing West (19-PL-878), 62:19-22 Murphy, John Paul, 2002, Aspects of Attributing Human Use to Unworked Quartz: The Quartz Crystals from Magunco Praying Town, Massachusetts, 63:35-43 o Otto, Bernard A.} 2000, The Margaret Angell Site} Kingston, Massachusetts, 61:53-59; And Marian A. Snyder; 2001, Letters to the Editor: Unidentified Artifacts, 62:31; 2001, Reminiscences of Russell H. Gardner (Great Moose), 62:41-43; 2004, Probable Early Woodland Fish-Spearing Points from Kingston, MA, 65:61-62

p Pagoulatos, Peter, 2003, An Avocational-based Site Registration: A View from New Jersey, 64(1):20-27

R Rainey, Mary Lynne} 2000, An Historic Perspective on Contemporary Classification Systems: The Case of the Ground Stone Ulu, 61:34-44; 2004, An Early Woodland Period Ceramic Production Feature in Bellingham, MA, 65:2-8 78 INDEX: Volumes 61-66, 2000-2006 Ritchie, Duncan, 2004, A Late Woodland and Contact Period Ceramic Assemblage from the Hartford Avenue Rockshelter, Uxbridge, MA, 65:9-14 Robinson, Brian S. and William Eldridge, 2005, Debating Bull Brook, 1965 to 1972, 66:67-75

5 Schultz, Eric B. and Michael Tougias, Corrected Endnotes and References to Wheeler's Surprise, New Braintree, Massachusetts, in Vol. 60(2), Fall 1999, 61:31-32 Simon, Brona, 2001, In Memoriam: Barbara E. Luedtke, 62:2-3; 2002, Boston Harbor: The Shapes of Things Past and Present, 63:2-10 Spiess, Arthur E., 2004, A Winged Bannerstone From Maine: Stone and Perishable Archaic Technology, 65:42-52

T Taylor, William B., 2000, The Trites Farm Site, Bridgewater, Massachusetts, 61:23-27; 2001, Narrow Triangular Points in Southeastern Massachusetts: A Paleoindian- Early Archaic Transition?, 62:5­ 10; 2005, An Update on Bifurcate-base Points from the Titicut Area, 66:3-11 Tobey, Franklin J., 2000, What Makes this Rock so Special?, 61:28-32 Twichell, Ethel, 2001, A Fertility Symbol from Cuttyhunk Island, Massachusetts, 62:68

W Wall, Suzanne, 2003, Aboriginal Soapstone Workshops at the Skug River II Site, Essex County, MA, 64(2):30-36 Waller, Joseph N. and Alan Leveillee, 2000, Archaeology in the Upper Charles River Drainage: Recent Investigations in Bellingham, Massachusetts, 61:12-22, 2001, Archaeology and Municipal Burial Ordinances: A Case from Narragansett Country, 62:11-18 Waller, Jr., Joseph N., 2000, Archaeologists, Narragansetts, and Cemeteries: Investigations at an Unmarked Narragansett Cemetery in Charlestown, Rhode Island, 61:45-52 Winter, Eugene, 2003, A Cache of Green Points from the Pringle Site (19-MD-18), Tewksbury, MA, 64(1):10-13

TITLE INDEX

A Aboriginal Soapstone Workshops at the Skug River II Site, Essex County, MA, Suzanne Wall, 2003, 64:30-36. Adaptation and Resistance: A Contact Period Component at Den Rock, Lawrence, MA, Jeffrey Robert Carovillano, 2003, 64:28-36. Archaeologists, Narragansetts, and Cemeteries: Investigations at an Unmarked Narragansett Cemetery in Charlestown, Rhode Island, Joseph N. Waller, Jr., 2000, 61:45-52. Archaeology and the Municipal Burial Ordinances: A Case from Narragansett Country, Joseph N Waller and Alan Leveillee, 2001, 62:11-18. Aspects ofAttributing Human Use to Unworked Quartz: The Quartz Crystals from Magunco Praying Town, Massachusetts, John Paul Murphy, 2002, 63:35-43. Avocational-based Site Registration, A View from New Jersey, Peter Pagoulatos, 64:20-27.

B Betty Little: An Appreciation, Dena F. Dincauze, 2004, 65:39. Blue Heron Site, Marshfield, Massachusetts, Ethel Twitchell, 2001, 62:63-67. Boston Harbor: The Shapes of Things Past and Present, Brona G. Simon, 2002, 63:2-10. BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 79 C Cache of Green Points from the Pringle Site (19-MD-18), Tewksbury, MA, EugeneWinter, 2003, 64:10-13. Caddy Park, Wollaston Beach, Quincy, Massachusetts: Burial? Cenotaph? Cache? Or Offering?, Thomas Mahlstedt, Margo Muhl Davis, 2002, 63:11-23. Contact Period Fishing Point of Cow Bone from Grape Island, Boston Harbor, MA, Craig S. Chartier, 2004, 65:25-28.

D Debating Bull Brook, 1965-1972, Brian S. Robinson and William Eldridge, 2005, 66:67-75. Discovery and Rediscovery of a Remnant 17th Century Narragansett Burial Ground In Warwick, Rhode Island, Alan Leveillee, 2004, 62:46-51.

E Early Woodland Period Ceramic Production Feature in Bellingham, MA, Mary Lynne Rainey, 2004, 65:2- 8. Editor's Notes, Shirley Blancke, 2000, 61(2):33; 2001, 62(1):1; 62(2):33; 2002 63(1,2):1 Editors' Notes, Shirley Blancke and James W. Bradley, 2003,64(1):1 Editor's Notes, James W. Bradley, 2003, 64(2):1: 65(1):1; 65(2):41; 66 (1):1; 66(2):45, 66.

F Fertility Symbol from Cuttyhunk Island, Massachusetts, Ethel Twitchell, 2001,62:68. Forest Management in the Ancient Northeast: Evidence from Stockbridge, MA, 2003, Eric S. Johnson, 2003,64:2-9.

H Historic Perspective on Contemporary Classification Systems: The Case of the Ground stone Ulu, Mary Lynne Rainey, 2000, 61:34-44.

I "I Can't Read So Good, But I Like Archaeology," Tony c.: An Educational and Public Outreach Project in the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, Alan Leveillee and Joseph N. Waller, Jr., 2003,64:14-19. In Memoriam: Barbara E. Luedtke, 1948-2000, Brona Simon, 2001, 62:2-3. In Memoriam: Great Moose (Russell Herbert Gardner), 1925-2000, Mark Choquet, 62:34-38. Index to Volumes 54-60,1993-1999,2000,61:61. Interpreting Diverse Marine Shell Deposits of the Woodland Period in Southern New England: Interrelationships among Subsistence, Symbolism, and Ceremonialism, Jordan E. Kerber, 2002, 63:24-34.

K Keene-Hayes Site, Auburn, Maine: A Multidisciplinary Learning Experience, Mary T. Concannon, 2002, 63:66-77.

L Late Woodland and Contact Period Ceramic Assemblage from the Hartford Avenue Rockshelter, Uxbridge, MA, The, Duncan Ritchie, 2004, 65:9-17. Letter from the President, Michael A. Volmar, 2005, 66:2. Letters to the Editor: Unidentified Artifacts, 2001, Bernard Otto, Marian A. Snyder 62:31-32. Local Lithic Materials in Archaic Technologies: Mylonite and Amphibolite from the Castle Hill Site, Wayland, Massachusetts, Tonya Largy, Duncan Ritchie, 2002, 63:51-65. 80 INDEX: Volumes 61-66, 2000-2006 M Making a Case for the Abbott Complex: The Bird Rock Site, Pelham Bay, NY, Edward J. Kaeser, 2004, 65:53-60. Many-Storied Danson Stone of Middleborough, Massachusetts, Russell H. Gardner (Great Moose), 2001, 62:44-45. Margaret Angell Site, Kingston, Massachusetts, Bernard A. Otto, 2000, 61:53-59. Moving Beyond Irrelevant Relativism: Reflections on the Women from Ponkapoag Praying Town, Massachusetts, Joyce M. Clements, 2002, 63:44-50.

N Narrow Triangular Points in Southeastern Massachusetts: A Paleoindian-Early Archaic Transition? William B. Taylor, 2001, 62:5-10. Native American Settlement in the Upper Housatonic During the Woodland Period, Timothy Binzen, 2004, 65:29-38. Neponset Site, Locus 4: More Evidence of a Michaud-Neponset Phase Occupation,The, Christopher Donta, 2005, 66:76-87. o Oak Knoll Site: An Orient Campsite in Lincoln, MA, Christopher L. Donta, 2003, 64:12-21. On the Shore of a Pleistocene Lake: The Wamsutta Site (19-NF-70), Jim Chandler, 2001,62:52-62.

p Probable Early Woodland Fish-Spearing Points from Kingston, MA, Bernard A. Otto, 2004, 65:61-62. Public Archaeology, the New Age, and Local Truths, Alan Leveillee, 2001, 62:23-28.

R Rediscovering the Atlatl: Observations on the Dynamics of Atlatl Design And Operation Based on Experimentation, Timothy H. Ives, 2003, 64:2-9. Re-examination of the Deerfield Industrial Park Survey, Elizabeth Chilton, Thomas Ulrich, and Niels Rinehart, 2005, 66:58-66. Reflections of the Middle Archaic: A View from Annasnappet Pond, Dianna L. Doucette, 2005, 66:22-33. Reminiscences of Dr. Barbara Luedtke, Barbara Calogero, Joyce Clements, 2001, 62:4. Reminiscences of Russell H. Gardner (Great Moose), Bernard A. Otto, 2001, 62:41-43. Reply to Gage, A, Thomas Mahlstedt and Margo Muhl Davis, 2003, 64:28-29. Rubin Farm Site, Norton, MA, Jeff Boudreau, 2005, 66:34-43.

S Some Observations on Caddy Park, Mary E. Gage, 2003, 64:22-27. Symbols in Stone, Part Two: Quartz Ceremonial Items from the Little League Site, Middleborough, MA, Curtiss Hoffman, 2004, 65:63-72.

T Tall Pines Rockshelter, Clinton, MA and the Rockshelter Use During the Late Woodland And Contact Periods, Martin G. Dudek and Craig S. Chartier, 2004, 65:18-24. Tribute to Russell H. Gardner (Great Moose), Kathryn Fairbanks, 2001, 62:39-40. Turner Falls Site, An Early Paleolndian Presence in the Connecticut River Valley, Timothy L. Binzen, 2005, 66:46-57.

U Unusual Plummet-Like Object from Mary's Landing West (19-PL-878), William E. Moody, 2001, 62:19- BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 81 22. Update on Bifurcate-base Points from the TIticut Area, William B. Taylor, 2005, 66:3-11.

W Wampurnpeag: Its Role as Currency in Massachusetts, Philip Brady, 2001, 62:29-30. What are These Artifacts?, Jic Davis, 2000, 61:60. Whortleberry Hill Site, An Early Holocene Camp in Dracut, MA, Martin G. Dudek, 2005, 66:12-2l. Winged Bannerstone From Maine, Stone and Perishable Archaic Technology, Arthur E. Spiess, 2004, 65:42-52.

SUBJECT INDEX

A anti-realism 62: 27 artifacts adze 61: 26, 63:12-18. anvils 62: 55; 64(1):29. atlatls 64(1): 2-9; 65: 42-52. awl 63:5, hafted 62:54. axe 61:24-25. beads, copper 62:46-48; glass 62:48; shell 62:48; wampum 62:46; bone 63:5. blades 63:6,11-22. bifaces 62:19; 63:60; 64(2):5, 15-17; 65: 58. bowl steatite 61:54. burnishing stone 62:60. cache blade 61:24, 25; 65:58. canoe weight 62:20. celt 61:24, 26. ceramics 61:18, 24; 63:5, 30; 64(1):28-36; 65:5-9; 53. chiastolites 65:63-72. choppers 62:19. cores 62:19. drill 61:24, 54. fertility syrnboI62:58. fish scaling tools 62:31. gorget 62:19. gouge 61: 24; 63:15-17; whale effigy 63:12,15. graver 61:29-30. gunflints, 63:35, 41-42; identifying 64(1):30-31; Native American 64(1):31-32. hammerstones 64(1):29. harpoon tip 63:5. hoes 65:35. honing/abrading sharpening stones 62:13,19. kettle fragments 62: 46. knife 61:24, 54, 58; 62:19; 63:11-15. leisters (unbarbed points) 63:5. mortar 61:26; 65:35. muller 62:19, 22. net (possible) 63: 12. pendant 63:12,15,18-19. perforator 63:60; 64(2):5. pestle 61:24, 26; 62:19-20; 65:35. pipes, 64(1):29; kaolin 62:19; ceramic 63:5; 64(1): 29; steatite 63:3. plummet 62:19-20, 63; 63: 12, 15. polishing tool 63:12, 15. projectile points - see below. reamer 61:54. scrapers, 61:24, 29, 30, 54, 58; flake 64(2):5. sinkers 63:12, 20. snaphaunce cock buffer 64(1):32-33. spoons, latten 62:4. ulu, 61:34-44; uses 61:41-42. worked vs un-worked stones, 63:35-41; 64(2):11. Auburn, Maine history 63:66-77

B Blackstone River 65:9-10 Boston Central Artery project 63:2,5,9 Boston Harbor 63:2-23; Grape Island 5:25-28 Boundaries 61:8 Bullen, Ripley at Pringle Site 64(1):11-13 Burials human 61:25,45-52; 62:11-18,46-51; 63:13,20-21,26-27,30; 64(2):10-11. canine 63:27-30. cremation 61:25; 64(2):10 Burial grounds Narragansett Indian 61:45-52; 62:46-51; patterns 62:17 Butchering 64(2):6

C Caching of objects (storage or ritual) 65:22 Carbon dating 61:14,18 Chiastolites see artifacts Classification process 61:34-44 Clothing 61:41 82 INDEX: Volumes 61-66, 2000-2006 Coastal sites 61:3-4; 63: 2-23 Colonial settlement 62:11; 65:31 Cultural continuity (Narragansett Indians) 62:15, 16 Cultural relativism 63:44-50 Curriculum, outreach Edward Little High School (ELF Woods) project 63:66-68,74-75; Blackstone River Valley Middle Schools/PAL Educational Programs 64(1):14-19; New Jersey Site Registration 64(1):20-27

D Danson stone, Middleboro 62:44-45 Dincauze, Dena 61:38,40; 65:2; 65:12, 15 Dutch wampum 62:30

E "Edge effect" 61 :20 Eliot, John 63:35 Endangered sites 61:4 Eskimo ulu ("woman's knife") 61: 34,37; groups 61: 35; use of animals 61:40 Estuaries 61:4; 63:2-10

F Features red ocher 63:11-23. hearths 61:14, 64(2):5. "mystery" features (Conant Parcel) 62: 23-28; (East Terrace) 65:2-8. pits 64(2):14-15. post molds 64(2):14. shell midden 61:2-4, 63:5; 24-34; 65: 24-28; 65:58 Forest management 64(2):2-9 Fowler, William 61:37-38 Fowl Meadow, Canton, MA 62:56-7 Funk, Robert discussion on Fox Creek and Abbott complexes 65:57

G Gardner, Russell (Great Moose) 62:34-38 Global warming 61:4 Graves Native American 63:45. Colonial 63: 45-46. grave goods 62: 15-16; 65: 65, 68

H Housatonic River, sites on 65:29-38

I In Memoriam (Barbara E. Luedtke) 62:2-3; 63:1 (Russell Gardner - Great Moose) 62:34-38; (Elizabeth Little) 65:39 Inuit 61:41; hearths 61:14 J Jeffers, Lorenzo (Wampanoag Chief Mittark) 62:37,41

K Kennewick Man 63:44-45,48 KIDS Consortium ELF Woods project 63:66-77 King Philip's War 63:73; 64(1):34-35 BULLETIN OF THE MASSACHUSETIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, VOLUME 67(2) 2006 83

L Landscape, perceptions 62: 23-28 Land use 61:5-6,8; natural 64(1):33-35; 65:32-32, 36; Algonquian settlement patterns 65:31-32 Laws, burial ordinances 62:11-17 Luedtke, Barbara E. 62:1, 4; In Memoriam 2-3; 63:1, 9, 22, 35-42, 48-49, 63, 76

M Mansfield, J. Alfred 63:53,54 Massasoit (Ousamequin, Yellow Feather) 61:11 Maushop 63:21, 22 Metacom(et) (Philip, "King Philip") 61:11 Middens, shell 61:2-4; 63:5, 24-34; 65:24-28; 65: 58 Middleborough, MA history 62:44, 45 Mortuary practices, Narragansett Indian 61:49-51; 62:16

N Native Americans Algonquian 65:31-32. Anasgunticook tribe 63:71, 73. Beothuk 65:47. Inuit, Yukpik and Northwest Coast 65: 48. Mohawk and Nipmuck 65: 20. Mohican 65:28, 29, 35. Narragansett Indians 61: 45-52. Pennacook-Pawtucket 64(1):29. St. Francis 63:73 Native American writers 63:47-48 Neponset, Glacial Lake 62:52, 53, 55 New Jersey 61:37; 64(1):20-27 Nickerson, W. Sears 62:39

p Periods PaleoIndian 61:37, 38; 62: 52-62; 65: 53. Archaic 61:40; 65: 53, 70. Early Archaic 61:4,26, 37, 38, 40; 62:5-10; 63:4. Middle Archaic 61:2, 12, 18,23,24,38,40,57,59; 63:4,51-65; 64(1):12; 65:4, 11, 45-46,61-62. Late Archaic 61:2, 8,18,21,24,27,37,40,57,59; 63:4, 6, 9, 22, 51-65; 64(1):12; 64(2):19; 65:25-28, 29-38, 45-46, 70. Terminal Archaic 63:51, 54; 65: 11. Transitional Archaic 63: 8, 9; 64(2):11; 65:2. Woodland 61:27, 49; 62:11, 15,64; 63:24-34; 64(1):28-36; 65:29-38. Early Woodland 61:18; 63:6, 22; 64(2):12-21; 65:2-7, 11,36,55,62. Middle Woodland 61:4,12, 18, 19,21, 30,57; 63:4, 5, 6; 64(1):12-13, 29; 64(2):5; 65:2-7, 36, 53-60. Late Woodland 61:2, 4,18,30,46; 62:5, 17,64,65; 63:4, 5, 27; 64(1):29; 64(2):4; 65:7, 9-1,18-24,25-28,29-38,55,61-62. Contact 61:11,26, 27,45,49,49,51; 62:15, 29-30,45-51; 63: 2, 11-24; 64(1):28-36; 65:9-17-28. Historic 63:66­ 77;64(1):16, 18; 65:12,13, 19,29-38 Perry, Leroy (Wampanoag Sachem) 62:37, 39 Projectile points Atlantic 63:6; 64(2):11. Atlantic-like 61:24; 62:65. Bifurcate 61:54; 62:7. Brewerton 61: 54. Colbert-Greenbriar 62:7. Cony (Coastal NY) lanceolate and stemmed 65:56-58. Dalton 62:5; Dalton-like 62:5-7. Fluted 62:54. Fox Creek 61:58; 62:64; 64(1):13; 65:57. Greene 64(1):10-13; 64(2):5; Greene-like preforms 62:65-66. Hastate 61:54, 57-58. Kirk Stemmed 62:7. Lanceolates parallel 62:7, stemmed 62:7. Leaf-shaped 62:64-66. Levanna 61:24; 62:5, 7; 64(2):5. Merrimack Stemmed 61:24; 62:19. Neville 61: 24; 63:58, 63; 65:4. Normanskill61:24. Orient Fishtail 61:54; 64(2):12-21; 65:4, 11. Otter Creek 61:54; 64(2):5. Poplar Island 61:24. Small-stemmed 61:24; 63:59; 64(2):5; 65:62. Snook Kill 61:58; 64(2):5. Squibnocket 61:24, 54. Squibnocket-like triangles 63:59. Stark 61:24; 63:58, 60, 63. Stark-like 61:58. Steubenville 65:53-57. Steubenville-like (CoNY) 65:56. Susquehanna Broad 61:24, 54; 64(2):5. Triangle 61:59; 65: 4. Wading River 61:24; 62:19 Praying Towns Magunco 63:35, 41; Ponkapoag 63:44-50 84 Public archaeology 62:23-28

R Red Paint sites 65:43; 65:68 Religion 61:49; 63:21-22 Rhode Island, policy on burials 61:45-46 Rockshelters, Bates 62:59. Den Rock 64(1):28-35. Hartford Avenue 65: 9-17. Tall Pines 65: 18-24 s Sea-level rise 61:4; 63:2-10 Seals, processing 61:40-42 Seasonality 61:4-5, 18 Shawsheen River survey 64(1):11-12 Sites Bird Rock 65:53-60. Blue Flag 61: 12-22. Blue Heron 62:63-67. Boston Harbor Islands 61:2-11. Caddy Park 63:11-23; 64(2):22-27, 28. Castle Hill 63:51-65. Christopher Street Burial 62:11-18. Den Rock 64(1):28-36. East Terrace 61:16-19; 65:2-8. Grape Island 65:25-28. Hartford Avenue Rockshelter 65:9-17. Hill #161:19. Keene-Hayes 63:66-77. Little League 65:63-72. Longshadow 61:20. Magunco Praying Town 63:35-43. Margaret Angell 61:53-59. Mary's Landing West 62: 19-22. Oak Knoll 64(2):12-20. Pringle 64(1):10-13. Skug River II 64(2):30-36. Spectacle Island 63:5. Tall Pines Rockshelter 65:18-24. Trites Farms 61:23-27. Wamsutta (Bates, Neponset) 62:52­ 62. Wapanucket 64(2):23. Warwick RI (rediscovered Narragansett Burial Ground) 62:46-51. Water Street 63:5-7. West Terrace 61:14-16 Snow, Edward Rowe 62:44 Solstice markers 62:24 Spiritual beliefs spirits 62:48,51. religion 61:49; 63: 21-22. shamanism 63:41-42. ceremonial use (of crystals) 63:35-36,41-42; 65:65-70. sacred landscapes 62:17 Stonework, Colonial Period 62:45 Symbolism, of landscape 61:8; of shell 63:24, 27, 41

T Thompson Island 61:3 "Thunderbolts" (quartz crystals) 63:41 v Verrazano, Giovanni da 62:15-16 w Warnpanoag Indians 62:34-38 Wampum(peag) 62:29-30 Wamsutta (Alexander) 62:56 Wayland Archaeology Group (WARG) 63:53-54 Webster, Daniel gun 62:42 Whale effigies 63:15, 16, 17, 19-22; 64(2):22; hunting 63:18-20 Wheeler's Surprise, corrected endnotes 61:31-32 Williams, Roger 62:15-16 Willoughby 61:37 Winslow, Edward 62:16 Women women's issues 63:44-50; pestles in funerary association with women 65:35 This journal and its contents may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling,loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ©2011 Massachusetts Archaeological Society.

CONTRIBUTORS

NICHOLAS BELLANTONI teaches Anthropology at the University of Connecticut Storrs. He is also the State Archaeologist for Connecticut.

JEFF BOUDREAU is a former chairman of the Channet Chapter of the M.A.S. As a flint knapper, he has conducted replicative studies of quartz Squibnocket points, felsite Neville points and, most recently, various forms of fluted points. He is also the official M.A.S. photographer.

JAMES W. BRADLEY is president of ArchLink and has written extensively on archaeological topics across the Northeast. He is the current editor of the M.A.S. Bulletin.

BEERNARD OTTO is the long-time chairman of the Massasoit Chapter and a frequent contributor to the Bulletin. He has a particular interest in the Late Archaic and other cultural traditions of Plymouth County.

WILLIAM B. TAYLOR is a long-time member of the M.A.S. He has been an ardent collector of Indian artifacts in the Titicut area for more than sixty years.

EUGENE WINTER is an active member of the Northeast Chapter and serves as Museum Coordinator at the Robbins Museum. He is a past president of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society. ISSN 01481886