Ten Thousand Years of Land Use at Fort Pond: A Portage Haven Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the Payne Site Montauk, Township of East Hampton Suffolk County, New York Unique Site Number A10303.000810

December 2008

Prepared for:

Biondo & Hammer LLP, Montauk, New York Timothy Hogan, Brooklyn, New York

Alfred G. Cammisa, M.A./RPA Thomas Amorosi, PhD, Felicia Cammisa, Justine McKnight, M.A., Alexander Padilla

571 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

PR#: 03PR00845

Involved agencies: Town of East Hampton & NYDEC

Phase: Phase III Data Recovery

Location: Montauk Town of East Hampton Suffolk County

Survey Area (Site size): Length of total site: 225ft (69m)north-south Width of total site: 125ft (38m) east-west. Acres of total site: .7 acre (.28 hectares) Site Nucleus (major activity area) Length: 60ft (18m) north-south Site Nucleus Width: 75ft (23) east-west Site Nucleus Acreage: .11 ac (.04h) APE: about 100ft by 80ft or .2 acre (mostly overlapping site nucleus) No. of sq. meters excavated: 28 (plus 7, 1m. sq. previous phase II TU’s) Percentage of site (nucleus) excavated: about 8%

USGS: Montauk Point, NY

Survey overview: ST no. & interval: na Size of freshly plowed area: na Surface survey transect interval: na No. & size of TU’s: 28, one meter square, TU’s

Results: -13 FT’s (cooking pits, oven pits, middens, & hearths) -5 FT’s carbon dated with nut fragments at Late Archaic-Early Woodland (Transitional), Early Woodland, & Middle Woodland Periods -Paleoindian-like unfluted point, Neville Stemmed point, Abbott Zone Incised- like pipe bowl -heavy Mid-Late Woodland (Levannas & Windsor Brushed pottery)use -no cultural stratigraphy

Results of Architectural Survey: No. Of buildings/structures/cemeteries in project area: none No. Of buildings/structures/cemeteries adjacent to project area: 1 No. Of previously determined NR listed or eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: none No. Of identified eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: none

Authors: Alfred G. Cammisa, M.A./RPA Thomas Amorosi, PhD Felicia Cammisa, B.A. Justine McKnight, M.A. Alexander Padilla, B.A.

Date of Report: Report completed December, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to offer thanks to Douglas Mackey of the New York State Historic Preservation Office. Doug’s opinions and assistance are always appreciated. Thanks also to the field and laboratory archaeologists who participated in this project. Their names are listed under Project Participants. We would also like to thank our clients, Andy Hammer of Biondo & Hammer, LLP and the property owner, Tim Hogan for their cooperation, assistance, and patience.

We would like to offer a thank you to those that helped to identify a couple of artifact anomalies, specifically, the Paleoindian-like broken point and the smoking pipe bowl fragment with the checkerboard design. Special thanks to Jonathon Lothrop, PhD, RPA of the New York State Museum for his assistance with the Paleo-like point. Thanks also to Edward Curtin, PhD, of Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc. Special thanks to Paul Inashima, M.S. for information regarding the pipe bowl fragment design.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...... 2-3

PREHISTORIC SETTING...... 3-6 Paleoindian Period ...... 3 Archaic Period ...... 3-4 Transitional ...... 4-5 Woodland Period...... 5-6

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ...... 7 Phase I Work ...... 7 Phase II Work...... 7

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES...... 8

FIELD METHODS...... 8-9

FIELD RESULTS...... 9-11 Stratigraphy ...... 9-10 Excavation Units ...... 10 Features ...... 10-11

LABORATORY METHODS ...... 11-14 Processing ...... 11-12 Lithic Analysis...... 12 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis ...... 12 Soil Flotation & Floral Analysis ...... 12-14 Faunal Analysis...... 14

LABORATORY RESULTS ...... 15-28 Lithic Analysis...... 15-18 Location of Artifacts...... 18-23 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis ...... 23-24 Pipes...... 24 Ecofacts ...... 24 Floral Analysis...... 25-26 Faunal Analysis...... 26-27 Radiocarbon Results...... 28

CULTURAL INTERPRETATIONS ...... 28-41 Introduction ...... 28-30 Soils & Stratigraphy ...... 30-31 Paleoindian Period ...... 31 Middle Archaic Period...... 31 Late Archaic & Transitional Periods...... 32-35 Early Woodland Period...... 35-36 Middle Woodland Period ...... 36-37 Middle to Late Woodland Periods...... 37-41

CONCLUSIONS...... 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 42-47

APPENDIX 1: Figures and Photographs APPENDIX 2: Test Units APPENDIX 3: Inventory APPENDIX 4: Glossary APPENDIX 5: Faunal Tables APPENDIX 6: Flotation Table 3 APPENDIX 7: Carbon Dating Tables/Charts APPENDIX 8: NY State Form APPENDIX 9: Illustrations of Paleoindian broken point, Abbott Zone-Incised pipe bowl, & Windsor Brushed pot sherd

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 Portion of the Montauk Point, NY USGS.

FIGURE 2 Phase I and II Shovel Tests and Test Units (Cammisa 2003).

FIGURE 3 Portion of the County Soil Survey.

FIGURE 4: Subsurface contours of Fort Pond.

FIGURE 5: Phase III excavation units.

FIGURE 6: Feature locations.

FIGURE 7: Artifact distributions and densities by feature.

FIGURE 8: Artifact distribution and densities by test unit.

FIGURE 9: Dates for features based on diagnostic artifacts and/or carbon dates.

FIGURE 10: Profile of FT’s 1 (hearths) and 10 (midden).

FIGURE 11: Profile and plan of FT 6 (hearth).

FIGURE 12: Profile and plan of FT 7 (cooking pit).

FIGURE 13: Profile and plan of FT 13 (oven).

FIGURE 14: Diagnostic artifact distribution for Middle to Late Woodland. FIGURE 15 Diagnostic artifacts from the Early Woodland Period.

FIGURE 16: Diagnostic artifact distribution of Late Archaic and Transitional Periods.

FIGURE 17: Diagnostic artifact distribution for earliest inhabitants (Paleoindian-like point and Middle Archaic Neville Stemmed point).

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO 1 Looking south at work in progress.

PHOTO 2 Features 1, 2 , and 3 - Hearth(s), Midden, & Hearth.

PHOTO 3 Features 4 and 5 - Hearth & Pit.

PHOTO 4 FT’s 6, 7, 8, 9, & 11 - 2 Hearths, 2 Pits, & 1 Midden.

PHOTO 5 Feature 12 - Oven: plan & profile shot.

PHOTO 6 Feature 10 - Midden, plan shot (top) & profile shot (bottom).

PHOTO 7 Feature 7 - Pit bottom of FT.

PHOTO 8 Feature 13- Oven: plan & profile shot.

PHOTO 9 Paleoindian-like point from TU 3.

PHOTO 10 Neville stemmed point from TU 14.

PHOTO 11 Pipe bowl fragments from TU's 6 & 13 (compare to Abbott Farm pipe bowl design - inset).

PHOTO 12 Netsinker from TU 20.

PHOTO 13 Spear-like Vosburg point from TU 4.

PHOTO 14 Wading River, Rossville, & Levanna points from TU 5.

PHOTO 15 Levanna point from TU 21.

PHOTO 16 Typical Clearview Stamped (rocker stamping) pottery.

PHOTO 17 Other pottery types: North Beach Brushed-like, Sebonac Stamped- like, Windsor Brushed, Matinecock Stamped-like. INTRODUCTION

Between November 7 and 25, 2007, TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. conducted a Phase III data recovery of the Payne Site, located in Montauk, New York. This project was originally generated by the town under SEQRA in 2002. The NY Department of Environmental Conservation will also be an involved agency. A prehistoric site was encountered in 2002 (Cammisa et al 2002A). The ensuing Phase II was completed in 2003 (Cammisa et al 2003A). At the opinion of TRACKER- Archaeology Services and the New York State Historic Preservation Office, a Phase III data recovery was requested and conducted during the fall of 2007.

The purpose of a Phase III data recovery is to gather the maximum amount of information available on site given a reasonable amount of effort and expense. The data recovery would hopefully contribute to the growing body of historical information and answer specific research questions of local and regional interest. Much of the information would conceivably substantiate existing concepts and also hopefully break new ground.

Research institutions utilized during the course of these investigations included the New York State Historic Preservation Office and the library at TRACKER- Archaeology Services.

The Payne Site was situated on an approximate 1 acre parcel along South Edgemere Street. It is bounded on the west by Fort Pond, on the east by South Edgemere Street, and on the north and south by private properties. However, the current (2007) project area (APE) is restricted largely to the proposed building envelope.

The study was conducted by TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. of Monroe, New York for the Biondo & Hammer of Montauk, New York, and the owner Timothy Hogan of Brooklyn, New York.

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

Principal Investigator Alfred G. Cammisa, M.A., R.P.A.

Field Director Alexander Padilla, B.A.

Crew Chief Jean Cascardi, B.A.

Field Technicians Michael Barrett, B.A. Kelly Foxworthy, B.A. Kristin Swanton, B.A.

Data Analyses/Co-Authors/Other Alfred Cammisa, M.A.: author, prehistoric pottery analysis, shell analysis Thomas Amorosi, PhD: co-author, faunal analyses, graphic artist Felicia Cammisa, B.A.: laboratory processing, co-author (editing) Joseph Diamond, PhD: lithic analysis, prehistoric pipe analysis Justine McKnight, M.A.: co-author, soil flotation and floral analyses Alexander Padilla, B.A.: author (mapping & graphics)

1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Geology The study area is located in the southeast portion of New York State in the southeastern part of Suffolk County. This portion of New York lies in the Atlantic Coastal Plains Physiographic Province. The coastal plain slopes gently eastward and is actually a strip of recently emerged sea bottom. The soils in this region consist of sand, clay and marl (a mixture of clay, finely fragmented shell, and calcite). This region of Suffolk County, on Long Island's south fork, lies on the Ronkonkoma Moraine. The moraine forms Block Island, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket Island, then runs from Montauk Point to Lake Success in western Nassau County. From Lake Success westward, the Ronkonkoma Moraine runs under the younger Harbor Hill Moraine. Between twenty thousand to twelve thousand years ago, the Montauk peninsula was an island, cut off from the south fork by glacial lake meltwater (Schuberth 1968: map, 9, 184-186; Soren and Jensen 1974; Sirkin 1995:56).

Soils and Topography Soils on the Payne site consist of:

Name Soil Color Texture Slope Drainage Landform Horizon % Depth Inclusion in(cm)

Montauk, A 0-3(0-8) 10YR3/2-6/2 LoSa, 8-18 very moraines sandy B 3-19(- 10YR5/6- sandy well variant 48) 7.5YR5/6 variant Wallington O 4-3(10- leaves SiLo 0-5 poor Montauk 8) Point O 3-0(8-0) root mat drainages A 0-2(-5) 10YR3/1 & ponds A 2-10(- 2.5Y5/2 26) B 10-18(- 2.5Y5/2) 46)

(Warner 1975: map 14, pgs. 76-77, 88).

Soil KEY:

Shade: Lt=Light, Dk=Dark, V=Very Color: Br=Brown, Blk=Black, Gry=Gray, Gbr=Gray Brown, StBr=Strong Brown, Rbr=Red Brown, Ybr= Yellow Brown Soils: Si=Silt, Lo=Loam, Sa=Sand, Cl=Clay Other: Sh=shale, M=Mottle, Gr=Gravelly, Cb=cobbles, /=or

Elevations on the site nucleus (and APE) generally range from 10 to about 20 feet above sea level.

The prehistoric site is situated along a small cove of the lake (Fort Pond). The topography slopes down from northeast to southwest along the site. The topography slopes down within the lake steeply at this point to a deep basin in the lake (Figure 4).

2 Hydrology The property is bounded on the west by Fort Pond. Fort Pond is a relict of a glacial meltwater channel, sealed off to the north and south by barrier beaches (Sirkin 1995:87). Fort Pond, actually a fresh water lake (Cavenaugh 1999:p.c.), is situated about 800 feet from the Atlantic Ocean or 1000 from Fort Pond Bay. Winds from the north come across Fort Pond and gather velocity.

Vegetation The predominant forest community inhabiting the Coastal Plain in this vicinity (Cape Cod to the Carolinas) was the Northern Pine-Oak Forest. These forests are maintained largely by the effects of frequent fires. Were it not for these fires, which the pine species have adapted to, these forests would slowly turn to Mesic, dominated by oak, hickory and red maple. Northern Pine-Oak Forests occur on sandy or otherwise poor soils that are overly dry. They generally have lower species diversity than bottomland forests (Kricher 1988: 16-17, 65-66). The reason the forest soils and surfaces are so dry in this moist region is due to the excessive drainage of overly sandy soils of the coastal plain.

At the time of the Phase III data recovery, the site was a heavily wooded parcel with some canopy trees and a generally dense undergrowth of briars, creeper vines, and scrub.

PREHISTORIC SETTING

Paleoindian Period, circa 10000 to 8000 B.C. is characterized by people living in small, widely scattered bands,hunting large grazing mammals such as mammoth and caribou in a park-tundra habitat, large browsing mammals such as mastodon, caribou, musk ox, moose, elk, etc. in a boreal habitat, and any small game or plant food that could be gathered. They had a small inventory of chipped stone tools with the fluted spear or javelin point as the principal item. They generally camped along large waterways (Ritchie 1980: 1-30; Ritchie and Funk 1973: 6-36, 333-336).

On Long Island, Paleoindian remains are usually limited to isolated surface finds consisting of fluted points belonging to the Clovis culture. At least fourteen isolated finds were recorded on the island, including the counties of Nassau, Suffolk, and Queens. Known locations include coastal areas as well as inland areas. Inland finds are usually on, or near, streams or large swamps. No Paleoindian sites or isolated finds are recorded from Montauk. The nearest evidence is from the Three Mile Harbor area. An isolated spear point was recorded along the west bank of Tan Bark Creek (Saxon in Stone-Levine 1978:251-262).

During this period, sea levels were several hundred feet lower than present and the continental shelf was exposed for a distance of about 100 kilometers. Mammoth and mastodon remains have been recovered by modern fishermen who commonly fish on waters between 20 to 120 meters in depth (Saxon in Stone-Levine 1978:252; Edwards and Emery in Truex 1982: 16-18). Montauk would have been a much larger piece of real estate at this time, extending well beyond its current bounds on all sides into the Atlantic Ocean.

Archaic Period, circa 8000 to 1000 B.C. is characterized by people living by hunting, fishing, and gathering wild foods and shellfish in a habitat of mixed coniferous-deciduous forest. These people lived in both small inland camps near small streams or marshes and in large, recurrently occupied fishing camps near large bodies of water. They lived in a more species rich environment and exploited a wider range of resources. Archaic material culture has a more varied

3 tool industry, including the atalatal, or spear thrower (Ritchie 1980: 31-149; Ritchie and Funk 1973: 37-70, 337-343).

Recorded Archaic sites in Montauk include:

-Joseph Landow Site (NYSM 7492/NYSHPO A103-03-000198) located near the golf course, was a Late Archaic site which included fire cracked rock (FCR), bifaces and debitage, -Great Pond Site (NYSHPO A103-03-0003-D03) situated along the east side of the lake, was a multicomponent Late Archaic site, -Lake Montauk Site (NYSHPO A103-03-0093-D03) was a multicomponent (Transitional Period onward) shell midden site with FCR, and deer bone. -Rosebery-Harvey Site (NYSHPO A103-03-000372) was a multicomponent Late Woodland/Late Archaic. Archaic activities appeared to have included primarily hunting related activities with secondary functions as gathering and woodworking (McLean 1998:44-45). -Rockhill Site, Late Archaic component, is located on the opposite side (west side) of fort Pond on Shepard’s Neck, directly across from the Payne Site. It appears that 2 base camps were situated on this site with a Snook Hill (variant) point. Artifacts from this site and period include, points, a mano, unifaces, fire cracked rock (FCR), preform, core, and debitage. Two different activity areas were encountered, each a small base camp (Cammisa et al:1999C).

During the Early Archaic (ca. up to about 6000 B.C.), sea levels were still much lower than today (Salwen in Truex 1982: 36). There appears to be a lack of Early Archaic evidence at all on Long Island. This may be due, at least in part, to the rise in sea levels burying former coastal sites during this period. Cultures represented at this time are the Laurentian. Diagnostic artifacts include Lamoka projectile points (Wyatt in Truex 1982: 70; Gwynne in Truex 1982: 195; Ritchie 1989: figure 1, 10; Lain 1988: 104; Salwen in Truex 1982: 36).

Middle Archaic evidence (ca. 6000 to 4000 B.C.) is somewhat rare on Long Island (Wyatt in Truex 1982: 70; Gwynne in Truex 1982: 195). According to Fairbridge's sea level charts, sea levels ranged from about 10 feet below present sea level (Salwen in Truex 1982: 36; Lavin 1988:104; Gwynne in Truex 1982:195). Some diagnostic artifacts from this general locale include Brewerton Corner Notched, Brewerton Side Notched, Vosburg, and Normanskill points (Ritchie 1989).

The Late Archaic (ca. 4000 to 1300 B.C.) is generally represented in the northeast by a thriving population, and proliferation of distinguishable regional adaptations and interareal exchange of raw materials (Gwynne 1982: 195; Lavin 1988: 104-108). Sea levels ranged from about 10 feet below to 10 feet above present (Salwen in Truex 1982:36). On Long Island, most Late Archaic sites are located along the coast and associated with shellfish collection. Cultures represented during this period include the Susquehanna. Some Squibnocket, Bare Island, and Popular Island points (Ritchie 1989: figure 1, 10, 131; Ritchie 1965: 48).

Transitional (Late Archaic-Early Woodland) The end of the Archaic Period (ca. 1300 to 1000 B.C.) includes a short Transitional Phase which is well represented on Long Island as the Orient culture. This culture is characterized by steatite or soapstone bowls and mortuary practices that included burials atop high hills, presumably overlooking the sea, and grave goods including red ocher. These burials were situated away from habitations. These sites appear to have been also located along the coast and associated with shellfish collection. Sea levels may have begun to stabilize since the later part of the Late Archaic leading to more extensive marsh eco- systems (Ritchie 1980: 164-178; Boyd in Truex 1982: 64-69; Lavin 1988: 106). Sea

4 levels were about 10 feet lower than present (Salwen in Truex 1982:36). The diagnostic artifacts include steatite/soapstone artifacts and the Orient Fishtail point (Ritchie 1980: 164-178). Some examples of very early pottery have also been reported on Long Island during this time. This pottery is associated with the Vinette 1 and 2 pottery (North Beach Brushed) but also Late Archaic type points (see also Early Woodland) (Smith 1950: 136, 186-187, plate 14; Ritchie 1965: 37- 38; Cammisa et al 1999A).

Woodland Period, circa 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1600, is also generally characterized by people living by hunting, fishing, and wild food and shellfish gathering. In addition, they developed a horticultural system based on corn, beans and squash as the primary cultigens. They lived in both small camps, either temporary or recurrent, and much larger villages which were sometimes palisaded for protection. They made and used pottery, copper tools, smoking pipes, the bow and arrow, and in general, had a larger and more varied tool industry than the preceding cultures (Ritchie 1980: 179-321; Ritchie and Funk 1973 96-332, 246- 369).

Although Woodland cultures developed and used horticulture, it is debatable as to its importance to Long Island tribes. Colonial accounts of soil fertility varied across the island, from good to bad. However, the coastal plain's generally sandy soils in this region do not seem especially productive. Ceci (1990: 147-170) remarks that the importance of horticulture on coastal New York prehistoric tribes as marginal due to marginal soil fertility.

It should also be recognized that Long Island tribes had access to a fairly reliable year round food resource in the form of fish, shellfish, and sea mammal hunting. The bounty for these maritime cultures was better than the usual hunting/gathering economies. Stored grain for a barren winter was probably more of a preoccupation away from the coast.

Recorded Woodland sites in the Montauk area include:

-Capurso Site (NYSHPO A103-03-000336), a National Register eligible Late Woodland site containing grit tempered pottery including Sebonac ware, lithic tools, and debitage. -Culloden Point sites (NYSHPO A103-03-0140), consisting of a Woodland Period component with debitage, tools, pottery, etc. -Lake Montauk Site (previously mentioned), a multi-component site with Sebonac pottery. -Great Pond Site (previously mentioned), a multi-component Woodland site with Sebonac pottery. -Roseberry-Harvey Site (NYSHPO A1030-03-000372), appears to be a multicomponent site with a Late Woodland and possibly Middle Woodland component and included Sebonac Stamped and Windsor Fabric Impressed pottery. This site may also be eligible for National Register status (McLean 1998). -Rockhill Site, Late Woodland component, appeared to be procurement and processing site for stone tool production (lithic workshop) and hunting, butchering, and gathering. Artifacts included FCR, pottery, arrowheads, biface, anvil, cores, and debitage. Three different activity areas were encountered which included a lithic workshop, a hunting/gathering camp, and a combination hunting/butchering and workshop area. Local, Windsor, pottery was recovered (Cammisa et al: 1999C).

During Early Woodland (ca. 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C.) the focus on marsh and shellfish exploitation continued in southern New York and southern New England (Lavin 1988:108). Sea levels fluctuated between approximately 10 feet higher and lower than present (Salwen in Truex 1982:36). Some diagnostic artifacts from

5 Windsor (Orient and North Beach Focus) and Adena cultures in this general locale include Vinette Interior Cordmarked pottery (similar to Vinette 1), North Beach Brushed pottery and Meadowood and Lagoon projectile points (Ritchie 1989; Ritchie 1980: figure 1; Smith 1950: 195; Smith in Truex 1982: 239; Ritchie and Funk 1973:96).

During the Middle Woodland (ca. 300 B.C. to A.D. 1000), sea levels ranged up to about 10 feet below present level (Salwen in Truex 1982: 36). Some of the largest shell midden procurement sites on Long Island have been radiocarbon dated from this period (Cammisa et al 1995). Diagnostic artifacts from the Windsor culture (Clearview focus) included Windsor Brushed (extends with greatest popularity into Late Woodland), Clearview Stamped, and Matinnecock Point Stamped pottery along coastal New York. Rocker stamping seems largely confined to this period. Greene points are also found in this general locale (Smith 1950: 195-197; Smith in Truex 1982: 239; Ritchie 1980: figure 1; Ritchie and Funk 1973:117; Ritchie 1989).

During the Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 1000 to 1600), sea levels were close to present conditions (Salwen in Truex 1982: 36). The mainly maritime (littoral) inhabitants of Long Island probably depended less on agriculture and more on coastal resources than the interior tribes (Lavin 1988:113). Some diagnostic artifacts from this period here include Windsor Cordmarked and Brushed, East River, Van Cortland, Bowmans Brook, and Sebonac pottery, and Levanna and Madison points (Ritchie 1980: figure 1; Smith 1950: 190-194; Smith in Truex 1982:239).

Palisaded villages are not common to Long Island during the Woodland Period. The reason for this is that palisades during Woodland Period are normally associated with a heavy reliance on horticulture and the storing of large amounts of food. Although common in interior areas, it is not common in coastal New York. Fort like structures on Long Island are usually associated with early Contact Period sites.

A Contact Period Indian trail is reported traversing the nearby vicinity of the Payne and Rockhill sites, along the current day Montauk Point State Parkway (Stone nd: map). Although it was recorded historically, the trail most likely existed previously during the Late Woodland Period (and likely earlier).

According to ethnographic sources, approximately 200 years before European contact and settlement, a group of Late Woodland people, not related to the Montauk or Shinnecock may have inhabited part of East Hampton and Southampton. They inhabited a territory of marshy coasts from the Peconic River to Accabonack Creek. These prehistoric inhabitants gathered flags for mats and caught fish. They may have been the Yeanacock, who were a tributary, or part of, the Curchaugs (who inhabited the north fork of Long Island). They were driven out of the area by the Montauk tribe (and the Shinnecock in Southampton). The Yeanacock it appears were broken up. Some were pushed back to the mouth of the Peconic River. Two old women living at Montauk in 1667 indicated that the tribe broke up and may have been adopted into the Montauk tribe (Talmage 1970: 6; Rattray 1953: 115-116; Ales in Stone 1993: 9, 1; Stone-Levine 1980: 161).

6 PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE PAYNE SITE

The Payne Site, our current area of investigation, was encountered in 2002 during a Phase I archaeological survey by TRACKER- Archaeology Services, Inc. Subsequent Phase II investigations were completed in 2003 (Cammisa et al 2003A; Cammisa 2002A).

PHASE I WORK Phase I work was conducted in October and November of 2002 and included the excavation of 21 shovel tests (ST’s) at 15 to 7.5 meter (50-25 ft) intervals across the approximate 1 acre property.

At this time, a prehistoric site was encountered which consisted of 20 artifacts and included flakes, fire cracked rock (FCR), and a uniface (Cammisa et al 2002A & 2003A).

A Phase II intensive testing was recommended.

PHASE II WORK Phase II investigations were conducted between April and June of 2003. The Phase II investigation included the excavation of an additional 8 ST’s as well as 7, one meter square, Test Units (TU’s). The results included:

1) Site boundaries appear to extend from the water (Fort Pond) to the road. However, the Payne Site appears not to extend off the property northward or southward. This puts the total site size at approximately 225 feet north-south by 125 feet east-west (.7 acre) and includes isolated finds along the peripheries.

2) Virtually all the artifacts were recovered from the topsoil and interface (levels 2 and 3). The subsoil (level 4) produced only 2% of the site assembledge and only from 1 TU (TU 3).

3)The major activity appears to be situated around the proposed house and driveway area on fairly level to moderately sloping terrain approximately 50 feet or more from the water. This puts the nucleus of the site at about 55 feet north- south by 100 feet west by east (.13 acre).

-Phase II investigations of the Payne Site resulted in the recovery of an additional 1191 prehistoric artifacts. Total inventory included 996 debitage and 16 tools consisting of 7 bifaces, 2 hand axes, 2 unifaces, 2 groundstone, 1 point, 1 preform, 1 hammerstone, 129 fire cracked rock. Also, 20 pottery sherds were recovered (Windsor Cordmarked, Windsor Brushed, Sebonac Stamped, and Clearview Stamped).

-A hearth feature (FT 1) and a pit feature (FT 2) with floral remains (assisting with seasonality) were reported.

-The Payne site appears to represent a seasonally recurrent base camp for nomadic hunter-gatherers and their extended families. The site was utilized during the early portion of the Late Woodland during the fall to winter. Possible evidence for exogamy from pottery types.

Conclusions were that Payne Site was eligible for nomination to the State and/or National Historic Register(s).

(Cammisa et al 2003A).

7 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Research Issues Research issues were presented prior to field investigations. The research questions incorporated past research on the Payne Site as well as original research.

Research issues include the following questions: 1)What activities, or additional activities, are present on the Payne Site? Identifying artifacts and associated tasks will answer this question.

2)What intrasite patterns can be established? Spatial analysis of the site, by identifying and interpreting activity areas, such as artifact concentrations and features will answer this.

3)Can intrasite patterning be compared with other prehistoric regional settlement patterning for similar or dissimilar characteristics? The methods for approaching an answer to this question would be to identify and interpret activity areas, if possible, across the site. An analysis of the association between any activity areas would be discussed. Recovery of diagnostic artifacts would be of paramount importance. Similar site dissection and analysis of intrasite patterning would need to be in the regional literature for a comparison.

4)Were the activity areas recurrent or occupied simultaneous. This information might be garnered by looking at typology as well as whether activity areas are replicated or not.

5)How does this site fit into the overall settlement patterns of the locale? A comparison of other sites in the vicinity will provide insight here.

FIELD METHODS

Phase III data recovery methods involved the use of shovel testing and excavation units.

Sampling Archaeologists conducting field work will usually rely upon either of three kinds of sampling strategies or any combination thereof: 1) random sampling, 2) systematic sampling, and 3) judgmental sampling. Judgmental and systematic sampling were used on site. Random sampling was not utilized on the Payne Site

Test Units Phase III EU's were conducted utilizing both judgmental and systematic sampling methods. These are described below.

Phase III excavation test units (TU’s) were designed to answer the various research issues (judgmental). Placement of TU's were mostly in areas of both densest artifact concentrations and feature potential (judgmental and systematic). However, occasionally TU's may have been also placed in areas of lighter artifact concentrations to determine site diversity (judgmental).

The one meter square TU's were often excavated side by side to open up large areas of the site and features (systematic). At times, TU's were staggered

8 around a tree, with its large roots. They were excavated by natural (stratigraphic) levels and in arbitrary 10 cm. levels within each stratum. Cultural levels had not been clearly discernable on this site. Test units were excavated a minimum of 10 cm. into cultural sterile subsoil. A 1 to 2 foot manual bucket auger was taken in certain locals on site at the end of excavation to determine any possible buried cultural horizons.

Excavation of TU's were conducted manually with the use of shovel and trowels. Shovel technique utilized was the "scrapping" or "skimming" method. Soil horizon interfaces and potential features were troweled in the attempt to uncover cultural features. Elevations of stratigraphy were recorded with the use of a line level. Line levels were generally placed at 10 cm. above ground surface in the southwest corner of the TU unless slope of terrain restricted this spot. If multiple TU's were excavated side by side, the same line level was used to map in stratigraphy and any features or in situ tools in the same area. This allowed for a more comparable elevation reading.

The number of TU's excavated was determined at the time of field investigations but was planned to be 25 or 26 TU's (about 6% of site acreage). In certain instances, some TU's were excavated in quadrangles (quads). Spatial (horizontal) mapping of artifacts was by TU's. Vertical mapping of the same was by line level and stratigraphy.

Pre-printed TU forms were used to document all pertinent field data by each level and each TU. Field information was also transcribed in a notebook. Photographs were taken of stratigraphic profiles, end of unit plan shots, topographic points of interest, and general work in progress.

Soils were screened through 1/4 inch wire mesh and analyzed for artifacts. Soil were recorded according to texture and color. Soil color was matched against the Temperate Zone Soils Chart in the Munsell system. All artifacts were bagged by stratum and level, provenienced, and returned to the Tracker laboratory for processing and analyses. Test units were mapped in with the use of a compass.

FIELD RESULTS

Twenty eight (28) Test Units (TU’s) were excavated during the Phase III data recovery of the Payne Site. Thirteen (13) features were encountered. Many of these expanded into multiple TU’s.

Stratigraphy General stratigraphy across the site consisted of the following (arbitrary levels were designated with “a” or “b”):

Level 1, A/O horizon - about 2 cm. to 14 cm. of root mat, humus and leaf litter where documented. However, this layer was, at times, absent.

Level 2, A horizon - about 8 cm. to 35 cm. of 10YR3/2 to 3/3 very dark gray brown to dark brown loamy sand to sandy loam. Approximate ten centimeter (arbitrary levels were designated with “2a” or “2b”, or “2c”).

Level 3, mottled interface, A/B horizon - approximately 3 cm. to 27 cm. of 10YR3/2 very dark gray brown to 10YR3/3 dark brown, gravelly loamy sand to loamy sand to sandy loam mottled with subsoil, 10YR5/6 yellow brown sandy loam to loamy sand (arbitrary levels were designated with “3a” or “3b”).

9 Level 4, B horizon - 10YR5/6 or 10YR 5/4 yellow brown, loamy sand, sandy loam, or gravelly loamy sand. Excavations ceased at about 10 cm. into sterile subsoil (arbitrary levels were designated with “4a” or “4b”).

Level 5: Coarse sandy Overburden from probable man-made causes, 10YR5/4 yellow brown. This was encountered as an overburden only in certain locales on site. (This was also encountered as a natural stratigraphy at the bottom of certain pit features which extended deep into subsoil and may represent the original beach surface).

Excavation Units A total of 28 TU's were conducted during the Phase III data recovery of the Payne Site. The TU's were numbered consecutively exclusive of Phase II work.

The initial plan was to start excavation at 3 different areas: -Area 1 consisted of TU’s 1, 2, 10, 19 and 20. Test units 1 and 2 were excavated near old Phase II units where a pit feature was formerly excavated during the 2003 Phase II (Phase II FT 2, see Cammisa et al 2003). This area revealed the remainder of the old Phase II pit FT. Excavation was expanded when another feature, a hearth, was encountered (see below, FT’s 4 & 5).

-Area 2 consisted of TU’s 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, & 13. Test unites 3 and 4 were initially excavated to recover remains of the old Phase II hearth FT (see Cammisa et al 2003). Remains of the old, partially excavated Phase II hearth were encountered. Excavation was expanded when an additional hearth feature and shell midden feature were encountered (see below, FT’s 1, 2, and 3).

-Area 3 consisted of TU’s 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. This area was initially excavated to test a seemingly “low density” area implied at by the Phase II (25 ft. interval) shovel testing which recovered low amounts of artifacts per ST or “negative” ST’s (see Cammisa et 2003). However, excavation was greatly expanded with the discovery of multiple features here. This area eventually converged with Area 1.

All features were completely excavated.

Features FT 1:Hearth(s) at TU’s 3, 11, 12 and 13 with rock and FCR (121 pounds of rock discarded in field), 190 cm. north-south by 110 cm. east-west. Feature soil was 10YR3/3 dark brown to 3/2 very dark grey brown loamy sand with reddened soils at bottom of the FT. First encountered intruding into level 3. This actually appears to be, 3 or more, small hearths adjacent to each other.

FT 2: Shell Midden at TU 13, SW quad, 50 cm. east-west by 35 cm. north-south where it continues into the wall. This FT was 13 cm. deep, containing clam and scallop shell, intruding into level 3. Approximately 30 percent of highly fragmented shell was discarded in field.

FT 3: Hearth (remaining portion from 2003 Phase II excavations) at TU’s 3, 4, & 9 intruding into level 3, with 10YR 3/3 dark brown to 4/3 brown loamy sand, and FCR and rock (43 pounds of rock discarded in field) at about 93 cm. north- south by 89 cm. east-west.

FT 4: Pit (remaining portion from 2003 Phase II excavations) at TU’s 1 and 2, about 60 cm. deep and 60 cm. east-west by 38 cm. north-south where it goes into south wall (and was excavated out in 2003), with 10YR3/2 very dark grey brown sandy loam. It was encountered at bottom of level 3 (last 5 cm.) and extended into level 4. Windsor pottery was collected from the bottom of this FT.

10 FT 5: Hearth, situated in TU’s 1 and 10, 19, and 20, at 104 cm. north-south by 135 cm. east-west. This FT was lying on subsoils with no staining on subsoil. This contained large rocks as well as FCR.

FT 6: Hearth in small basin with FCR, situated at TU 18, 17, and 8, 110 cm north-south by 1 meter east-west and 21 cm. deep.

FT 7: Pit at TU 6 and 14, about 68 cm. in diameter and 42 cm. deep.

FT 8: Shell midden, immediately southeast of FT 6, and 40 cm. in diameter by 4 cm. deep.

FT 9: shallow Pit stain, 1.5 meters in diameter at TU’s 5, 8, and 21 cm. deep, encountered in subsoil. This was not completely excavated due to a large tree in the way.

FT 10: Shell Midden, 61 cm. east-west by 1 meter north-south heading into east wall and 60cm. deep into subsoil at TU’s 11 and 12. Soils are 10YR 3/2 very dark gray brown sandy loam with some charcoal flecking. This was encountered partially UNDER FT 1. Approximately 30 percent of highly fragmented shell was discarded in the field.

FT 11: Hearth at TU’s 16 and 22 about 60 cm. north-south by 50 cm. east-west with FCR and 2 to 4 cm. deep from level 3 into subsoil.

FT 12: Oven Pit with a large amount of rock and FCR (217 pounds of rock discarded, mostly granitic schist) about 1 meter in diameter and 60 cm. deep at TU’s 23, 24, 26, and 27, extending from bottom of level 3 into subsoil. Soils are 10YR3/2 very dark grey brown loamy sand. At this point subsoil was beach gravel and coarse beach-like sand (which apparently appeared to be redeposited across site at various locations indicating site disturbance).

FT 13: Oven Pit, with a large amount (and sized) FCR, 73 cm. east-west by 151 cm. north-south of 10YR4/3 with brown fine sandy loam and charcoal flecking extending from level 3 into subsoil at TU’s 28 and 25.

LABORATORY METHODS

Processing Artifacts recovered and retained during extended Phase II and Phase III field work were transferred to TRACKER-Archaeology Services' laboratory in Monroe, New York. The artifacts were cleaned, dried and rebagged.

The inventory was organized by TU and level and other descriptive variables. In addition, statistics on artifact types and locations were generated.

The archaeological remains were identified utilizing a modified version of the National Park Service Material Cultural Data Base Taxonomy. Artifacts were indexed according to "function" and minimally included: functional group, artifact class, morphology, material, comments, and date or date range.

The artifact inventory was catalogued on Paradox which assisted in manipulating variables and queries and in calculating statistical information.

The artifact assembledge will be stored and curated at a research facility. They will be available for research and educational purposes.

11 Lithic Analysis Methods used consisted of the investigation of raw material variety, flake attributes such as decortication reduction sequences, tool identification, and edgeware analysis (retouch and utilization). Artifacts were weighed, selected whole points and other selected tools were measured. Analysis was, for the most part, conducted macroscopically (with the naked eye). The use of a hand lens or microscope was also used in some instances for determining use wear versus retouch, mineral composition, and some general analysis.

Prehistoric Pottery Analysis All sherds were analyzed for temper and paste, surface finish and decoration, and shape/form. Sherds were analyzed under direct lighting, either natural or artificial, with either the naked eye, a 5x to 10x hand lens, or both. Pottery was analyzed primarily by utilizing Smith's (1950; in Truex 1982:238-239) descriptions and sequences.

Soil Flotation and Floral Analysis by Justin McKnight

Recent data recovery efforts by Tracker Archaeology, Inc. at the Payne Site, Fort Pond, Montauk, New York, included the collection, processing and analysis of plant macro-remains. Systematic study of flotation-recovered plant remains from archaeological contexts at the Payne site contributes to an understanding of site form and function, subsistence, and landscape conditions during the prehistoric era. Material culture recovered from the Payne site document that the site was predominantly occupied during the Mid-Late Woodland Period. The presence of lithic artifacts characteristic of Late Archaic cultures (and earlier) suggest that the site was repeatedly occupied over a long period of prehistory.

Soil samples were retained for flotation processing from eleven cultural features conforming to 4 basic feature types (hearth, pit, midden, stain) (see Table 01).

Table 01: Summary of Flotation Samples. Feature Type N of samples Volume grams (liters) carbonized material 1 Hearth 2 4.25 0.47 2 Shell Midden 1 1.5 0.16 3 Hearth 1 1.5 0.18 4 Pit 1 3.5 0.38 6 Hearth 1 3 0.30 7 Pit 1 4 0.67 8 Shell Midden 1 2 0.36 9 Pit Stain 1 2 0.04 10 Midden 2 8.5 4.18 12 Oven 1 2 0.16 13 Oven 1 2 0.72 11 features 4 basic feature 13 34.25 7.62 types

The soil samples were processed using a Flote-Tech flotation system equipped with 0.325mm fine fraction and 1.0mm coarse fraction screens. The Flote-Tech system is a multi-modal flotation system which facilitates the separation and recovery of plant materials from the soil matrix via agitation in water. Processing resulted in two size fractions (heavy and light). Floted portions were air dried. All plant remains recovered through flotation were combined and

12 passed through a 2mm geological sieve, yielding fractions of 2 different sizes for analysis. Weights and sample descriptions of the resulting greater than or equal to 2mm and less than 2mm fractions were recorded. The greater than or equal to 2mm charcoal specimens were examined under low magnification (10X to 40X) and sorted into general categories of material (i.e. wood, seed, nut, miscellaneous material, etc.). Description, count and weight were taken for each category of the greater than or equal to 2mm carbonized material. The less than 2mm size fractions were examined under low magnification and scanned for any remains of seeds or cultivated plants.

Identifications were attempted on all seed and miscellaneous plant remains recovered, and on a sub-sample of 20 randomly selected wood fragments from each sample in accordance with standard practice (Pearsall 2000). Identifications of all classes of botanical remains were made to the genus level when possible, to the family level when limited diagnostic morphology was available, and to the species level only when the assignment could be made with absolute certainty. When botanical specimens were found to be in eroded or fragmentary condition, a variety of general categories were used to reflect the degree of identification possible. General wood categories within the analyzed assemblage include ‘ring porous’, ‘deciduous taxa’. ‘coniferous taxa’ and ‘unidentifiable’. The term amorphous carbon is used in this report to label carbonized vegetal material lacking any identifiable characteristics.

The processed samples yielded both carbonized and non-carbonized plant materials. Non-carbonized plant remains observed in the flotation-derived botanical assemblage included modern roots and non-carbonized seed. Non- carbonized seeds were described (see Table 03), but were not picked from the sample matrices or quantified. It is highly unlikely that these non-carbonized plant specimens were interred concurrent with period artifacts and the carbonized macro-botanical remains. Although the persistence of non-carbonized plant remains from consistently xeric or water-saturated environments does occur (Hastorf and Popper 1988; Minnis 1981; Pearsall 2000), such soil conditions do not accurately characterize the Payne site. Non-carbonized plant remains occurring within archaeological soil samples from similar site environments are usually considered to be intrusive modern specimens (Minnis 1981; Keepax 1977). The recovery of non-carbonized plant remains may reveal specific contamination episodes associated with animal (i.e. rodent, insect, gastropod) burrowing, the action of root growth and decay, aeolian processes, or by the combined effects of these factors.

Table 02: Ecofacts Observed within the Analyzed Samples.

FT Roots Insect Sand/gravel Bone Lithic Shell Snail Mica Ceramic fish parts /rock (bivalve) scale 1xx x xx 1(2) x x x 2xx x x x 3x x x 4xx x x x 6x x x x x 7x x x x x 8x x x xx x 9xx x x xxx 10 x x x x 10(2) x x x x x x 12 x x x 13 x x x x x x x x

13 In addition to floral remains, the processed flotation samples contained a variety of cultural artifacts and ecological debris. Table 02 indicates the presence of various types of ecofacts and material culture observed in the analyzed samples.

All botanical identifications were made under low magnification (10X to 40X) with the aide of standard texts (Panshin and deZeeuw 1980; Schopmeyer 1974; Martin and Barkely 1961; Hoadley 1990), and checked against plant specimens from a modern reference collection representative of the flora of the project area (Taylor 1923; Gleason 1962). Specimens were weighed using an electronic balance accurate to 0.01 grams.

Faunal Analysis by Thomas Amorosi

INTRODUCTION: The faunal remains described within this report are derived from a Phase III, 2007 excavations of the Payne site, located on Fort Pond, in the Montauk area of Eastern Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. For further details on the site excavation, site finds, AMS dating of feature deposits and other environmental samples see Cammisa (this volume).

The emphasis of this report is being placed upon the overall nature of this faunal assemblage.1 The Biogeographic representation of species is presented in Tables _1-2. Several specific taphonomic observations that can be readily observed from this collection and are found in Tables 4-6. These tables include the degree of bone weathering (Table_4), the degree of bone fragmentation (Table 5), and other miscellaneous taphonomic signatures (Table 6). The osteometric data taken for this assemblage is listed in Table 7. Socionomic aging data is presented in Table 8. The distribution of the faunal remains by excavation unit and by feature can be found in Table 9. Finally, Table 10 is an inventory of the faunal remains by their respective site context information.

METHODOLOGY: The methodology used here follow those established in Amorosi (1996) and have been successfully used in a number of Cultural Resource Management projects from the Mid-Hudson and Long Island area (see Amorosi 2007 for references). Socionomic aging parameters follow Amorosi (1989), Lewall and Cowan 1963 (in Gilbert 1980), Ruscillo (2006) and Wilson et al. (1982) for epiphyseal fusion. The osteometric protocols used here are Von Den Driesch (1976) for mammal and avian species and Morales and Rosenlund (1979) for fish species.

A series of taphonomic observations was made from the laboratory table. The bone weathering protocol follows a modified scoring system first developed by Behrensmyer (1978). Essentially Behrensmyer’s categories have been expanded in order to cover the “in-between” any one weathering stage. Behrensmyer’s system works on a scale of 1-5, where a score of 5 equates to little of the periosteum (the upper table of a bone or bone surface) surviving and the bone fragment has lost its morphological features. The degree of fragmentation is a rather simple device to record bone fragment size. The longest linear dimension is noted in Imperial (inches) during the identification phase of this research. All other indicators are noted by a simple presence or absence on the bone fragment.

1 This is similar to the Stage 1 style of descriptive reporting now in use by the York Historic Trust (cf. O’Connor 2003). 14 LABORATORY RESULTS

Phase III data recovery efforts recovered a total of 5565 prehistoric artifacts and 859 ecofacts from the Payne Site. Lithic artifacts numbered 5090 and 475 were small pottery sherds.

LITHIC ARTIFACT ANALYSIS

Debitage

Total tertiary secondary primary block tested cores Debitage flakes flakes flakes shatter cobbles (% of (% of (% of (% of (% of (% of (% of lithics) lithics) debitage) debitage) debitage) debitage) debitage)

3175 2235 649 196 89 6 26 (62.4%) (70.4%) (20.5%) (6.2% ) (2.8%) (.2%) (.5%) (1 recycled FCR)

Tools

Total Hammerstone Grounstone Utilized Scraper Biface tools Flake (% of (% of (% of (% of tools) (% of tools) (% of tools) tools) lithics) tools) 136 15 (11%) 5 (4%) 6 (4%) 7 (5%) 47 (34.5%) (2.7%) [3 (1 strike- muller/mano a-light) (one in 3 pieces), 1 muller/mano 1 Mano/ Hammerstone]

15 Knife Preform Point Paint Burin Pot (% of tools)

5 (4%) 2 (1.5%) 36 (26.5%) 1 (1%) 2 (1.5%)

(10 Levannas, (1 Orient 2 Brewertons, Fishtail, 1 Rossville, 1 Levanna) 4 Wading River, 2 Vosburgs, 1 Neville, 1 Jack Reef, & 1 Paleoinidan- like*)

Choppers Perforator/ Net-Sinkers Nutting Stone Uniface Drill Bit (% of tools) 2 (1.5%) 3 (2.5%) 3 (2.5%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%)

(1 perforator 1 drill bit 1 drill/ perforator)

Measurements for Selected Whole Points:

TU STRATUM MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT (Length x Width x Thickness in inches)

4 3 chert Vosburg 3 x 7/8 x ½ (spear-like) 11 2c sw chert Jack Reef CN 11 1/16 x 1 3/8 x 3/8 5 3 quartzite Rossville 1 7/16 x 1 x 7/16 5 3 quartzite Wading River 1 x 11/16 x 3/8 5 3 grey Levanna 1 5/8 x 1 1/8 x ½ quartzite 19 3 chert Orient 2 5/8 x 1 1/4 x 5/8 Fishtail

16 14 3 quartzite Neville 2 x 1 1/8 x ½ Stemmed (ca. 5700BC) 8 3 quartzite Levanna 1 x 1 x 3/8 5 2b quartz Levanna 7/8 x 7/8 x 3/8 FT 1 quartzite Brewerton SN 1 1/4 x 1 1/8 x 3/8 FT 14 quartzite Wading 1 5/16 x 3/4 x ½ River/Lamoka 22 3 quartzite Vosburg 2 5/8 x 1 1/8 x 7/16 24 2b quartz Wading River 1 1/8 x 3/4 x ½

Other Selected Tool Measurements:

TU STRATUM MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MEASUREMENT (Length x Width x Thickness in inches) 20 2b granite/gneiss netsinker 4 x 2.75 x 1 3/8 12 2b se quartzite burin 1 1/4 x 9/16 x 3/8 12 2b se quartzite burin 1 5/16 x 9/16 x 3/8 8 3 quartz perforator 1 3/8 x 3/4 x 3/8 8 3 quartz scraper 1 ½ x 1 3/8 x 5/8 12 2b ne granite/schist netsinker 3 ½ x 2 1/8 x 1 3/8 17 3 quartz drill/ 1 1/4 x 1 x ½ perforator FT 1 granite/ muller/mano largest piece (of 3 hornblende fragments) 5 ½ (broken) x 3 ½ (broken) x 1 ½ FT 1 quartzite nutting stone 4 1/8 x3 7/8 x2 1/8 3 3 quartzite Mid-Late L= 1.3055 (33.17mm) Paleo-like W= 1.2210 (31.02mm) Broken Point Th= .476 (12.09mm) Depth of Basal Agate Basin or Concavity = .222 Nicholas-like (5.64mm) * (see below)

* The artifact designated as a Late-Paleoindian-like point appears broken. It has an unfluted, “pumpkinseed” shape reminiscent of a Late Paleoindian point (Curtin 2008:p.c.; Diamond 2008:p.c.)

17 According to John Lothrop (2008:p.c.) of the New York State Museum (who examined the artifact):

The point is possibly from the middle to late Paleoindian Period. The unfluted point base expands laterally, similar to the Agate Basin form described by Bradley et al. (Late Paleoindian, circa 11,600-10,800 calibrated BP). On the other hand, the base itself is somewhat concave, being more reminiscent of unfluted and basally thinned Cormier-Nicholas points (middle Paleoindian, circa 12,200-11,600 calibrated BP). Lacking the tip section, anything more is problematic.

Fire Cracked Rock (FCR): Fire cracked rock included 1753 pieces representing about (34.5%)% percent of the total lithic assembledge. One FCR appeared to be a recycled core.

Material

MATERIAL Count Artifact type (% of lithics) Quartz 3654 flakes, tools (flaked & pecked), FCR (many (71.75%) times with schist), cores Quartzite 175 ((3.5%) tools (flaked, pecked, & ground), flakes, FCR, cores Chert 74 (1.5%) flakes, flaked tools (2 Vosburgs, Orient Fishtail, Jack Reef, & Levanna points) Sandstone 985 1 flake, 2 hammerstone, remainder FCR (19.25%) Granite 196 (4%) 13 tools (ground/pecked, 2 recycled as FCR), remainder FCR Jasper 5 (.1%) 1 scraper, remainder flakes Conglomerate 2 FCR Hemetite 1 paint pot

LOCATION OF ARTIFACTS

Artifacts per TU:

T.U. Count Artifact & Ecofact types

1 169 pottery (North Beach?), FCR (104), all flakes, shatter 2 175 FCR, all flakes, point, bifaces, pottery (poss. No. Beach & Clearview)

18 3 306 Paleo-like point, pottery (Brushed, Clearview, poss. Windsor CM), all flakes, shatter, shell, FCR, utilized flake, point, tested cobble, biface 4 391 all flakes, FCR, pottery (Windsor CM or Brushed, Sebonac-like, poss. Vinette), shell, shatter, chopper/core, biface, Vosburg, utilized flake 5 180 Rossville, Wading River,2 Levannas, pottery (Windsor Brushed), FCR, 2 hammerstones, all flakes, tested cobble, biface, shatter 6 121 all flakes, shatter, shell,22 FCR, pipe bowl(checker design), biface, cores, pottery (Windsor Brushed) 7 319 FCR, all flakes, shell, shatter, tested cobble, utilized flake, 11 bifaces, 2 scrapers pottery (Windsor Brushed), point, core 8 140 all flakes, shatter, pottery (Brushed), FCR, scraper, bifaces, Levanna, perforator 9 161 all flakes, pottery (Windsor Brushed), FCR, point, biface, scraper, shell, sea mammal bone 10 84 all flakes, shatter, pottery (Windsor Brushed), FCR, biface 11 278 47 pottery (Windsor Brushed, CM, poss. Sebonac), all flakes, FCR, knife, core, biface, hammerstone, Jack Reef, Levanna, 62 shell 12 545 95 pottery, 181 FCR, all flakes, shatter, tested cobble, scraper, points,2 poss. burins, Brewerton eared, Levanna, core, netsinker, knife, bifaces, drill, mammal/bird bone, shell 13 276 all debitage, shatter, core, pipe bowl, bifaces, FCR, mammal/bird bone, pottery (Windsor CM), 98 shell 14 124 all flakes, FCR, pottery (Windsor CM), Neville, Levanna-like, netsinker, utilized flake, shell, biface 15 166 FCR, all flakes, shatter, pottery

16 278 24 pottery (Windsor Brushed & poss. CM, poss. Matinecock), 2 hammerstones, bifaces, point, scraper, all flakes, shatter, 108 FCR 17 122 12 pottery (Windsor CM & Brushed), mano/hammerstone, cores, drill/perforator, point, all flakes, FCR, shell, mammal bone, flake knife 18 102 all flakes,28 FCR, point, pottery (poss. Windsor Brushed), core

19 19 124 all flakes,54 FCR, pottery (Clearview, Windsor CM), Orient Fishtail preform, utilized flake 20 158 pottery (Windsor Brushed), shell,47 FCR, netsinker, core, all flakes, shatter 21 215 all flakes, 3 hammerstones, 2 Levannas, pottery, (Windsor Brushed)60 FCR, cores, chopper, points, 5 bifaces, shell 22 204 paint pot, muller/mano, Levanna, all flakes, pottery (poss. Clearview, poss. Niantic), 38 FCR, shell 23 12 shell, Vosburg, secondary flake 24 88 all flakes, shatter, pottery (Windsor Brushed, poss. Matinecock), Wading River, FCR, biface 25 204 all flakes, shatter, tested cobble, 40 FCR, 40 pottery (Windsor Brushed, poss. Clearview, poss. North Beach), hammerstone, shell, mammal bone 26 51 all flakes, shatter,3 cores, biface, utilized flake, point, pottery, FCR 27 44 all flakes, scraper, FCR, pottery, core 28 17 pottery (Windsor Brushed, poss. Clearview), tertiary & secondary flakes, shatter, FCR

Artifacts by Feature:

FT Count Artifact & Ecofact Type 1 418 Diagnostics: Wading River & Brewerton points Levanna point & Windsor Cordmark pottery hearths 1983 quarter

unident. pottery,156 FCR, Nutting stone, 3 Muller frags., cores, all flakes, shatter, Preform, flake Knives, Uniface, Biface, 89 shell, fish bone

(Not included in count: grape seed from flotation) 2 172 Diagnostic: C14= 10 B.C.-A.D. 140

midden tertiary & secondary flakes, 12 FCR, 6 fish(cod)/bird(duck,turkey)/mammal bone, 122 shell, (about 30% of the most fragmented shell discarded in field), 1 pot sherd

(Not included in count: hickory nut from flotation) 3 138 Diagnostics: Vosburg point unident. pottery hearth all flakes, shatter, Biface, core, 61 FCR, 13 shell

20 4 24 Diagnostics: Windsor Brushed pit unident. pottery 5 15 No diagnostics. hearth tertiary & secondary flakes, 6 FCR 6 55 Diagnostic: C14= 820-760 B.C. unident. pottery hearth all flakes, shatter, 19 FCR, 9 shell

(Not included in count: hickory nut from flotation) 7 79 Diagnostic: C14= A.D. 130-350 Levanna-like preform pit all flakes, 11 FCR, 4 bird bone & 1 shark vert., 49 shell

(Not included in count: hickory nut from flotation) 8 36 Diagnostic: C14= A.D. 230-410 Levanna point midden tertiary flakes, 20 mammal/bird/fish bone (shark), 12 shell (perhaps 2% of highly fragmented shell were discarded in field)

(Not included in count: hickory nut from flotation) 9 24 Diagnostics: unident. pottery shallow tertiary & secondary flakes, shatter, 2 Hammerstone/FCR, pit 7 FCR stain 10 222 Diagnostic: C14= 1130-920 B.C. unident. Windsor pottery midden all flakes, shatter, 3 Bifaces(1 strike-a-light) Hammerstone,45 FCR, core, 1 mammal (deer)/15 fish bone(shark,cod), 124 shell

(about 30% of the most fragmented shell discarded in field)

(Not included in count: hickory nut & grape seed from flotation) 11 25 No diagnostics. hearth all flakes, flake Knife, 8 FCR

21 12 102 Diagnostics: Windsor Brushed, poss. Windsor Cordmarked, & poss. Matinecock Stamped pottery oven all flakes, tested cobble, 40 large FCR, unident pottery, shell, Hammerstone, core

(24 total pottery) 13 70 Diagnotics: Wading River/Lamoka 9 unident. pottery oven 2 mammal/9 fish (cod)bone, 15 large FCR, core, Hammerstone, Biface, 10 shell, debitage

Artifacts by Level for TU’s (not including FT’s):

Level Count Artifact Type 1 25 Diagnostics: unident. pottery

all flakes, FCR, pottery, shell (also: bottle glass, macadam, coal, plastic, etc.) 2 163 Diagnostics: Levanna point, Windsor Brushed (2a) & poss. Clearview Stamped pottery

FCR, cores, bifaces all flakes, shatter, tested cobbles, shell, utilized flake, unident. pottery

(also: plastic, bottle top, bottle glass, windshield wiper, iron frags., etc.)

2b 1228 Diagnostics: Windsor Brushed & Cordmarked pottery, poss. Niantic pottery, 4 Levanna points Wading River point, poss. Matinecock Stamped, poss. Clearview stamped, poss. North Beach Brushed pottery

cores, Bifaces, Scrapers, unident. Points, Hammerstones, Burins, Netsinker, Utilized flake, Knife, Mano, shell, bone, all flakes, shatter, FCR

(also: glass)

22 2c 613 Diagnostics: Windsor Brushed, Jack Reef & Levanna points, poss. Clearview Stamped & poss, Vinette pottery

Paint pot, Chopper, Muller, Biface, shell, all flakes, shatter, Hammerstone, FCR 3 2953 Diagnostics: Windsor Brushed, Clearview (3a) Stamped, Windsor Cordmarked & Sebonac-like pottery, Levanna point Rossville points poss. North Beach Brushed & poss. Matinecock Stamped pottery, Rossville point, Wading River, Vosburg & Brewerton Eared points, Orient Fishtail preform Neville Stemmed point Mid-Late Paleoindian-like point

unident. pottery FCR, bones, shell, all flakes shatter, tested cobble, bifaces, pipe bowl frags., hammerstone, utilized flakes, cores, scrapers, perforator, drills, chopper, unident. points 3b 50 Diagnostics: Windsor brushed pottery

unident. pottery, FCR, all flakes, shatter, shell, mammal bone

4 186 No diagnostics.

all flakes, shatter, FCR, hammerstone, utilized flake, biface

(also, coal) 5 12 Diagnostics: Windsor Brushed pottery

all flakes, shatter, unident. pottery

(also, glass, flip top, bottle cap, plastic, macadam)

POTTERY ANALYSIS

A total of 475 pottery sherds were recovered. Other than typical Windsor Brushed or Clearview Stamped pottery, much of the analysis interpretations are to be regarded as ”tentative” due to the small sized, low amounts, and badly deteriorated condition of the sherds.

Most of the potsherds exhibited finishing marks known as Windsor brush strokes, mostly on the interior. These are of the local Windsor tradition from eastern Long Island or southern New England. Diagnostic design marks appeared to be mostly Windsor Brushed or occasionally Sebonac or Windsor Cordmarked. Windsor Brushed first appeared during the Middle Woodland but did not become popular until the Late Woodland. Windsor Cordmarked and Sebonac are diagnostic of the

23 Late Woodland (Smith 1950:134, 135, 193-195; Smith in Truex 1982:239 see also Cammisa et al 1999A and 1999B, Cammisa et al 2008).

Clearview Stamped is a rocker stamping indicative of the Middle Woodland, but is not local to eastern Long Island but rather western Long Island. Matinecock Stamped is not considered local but rather from western Long Island and is related to Vinette 2 but likely before Clearview Stamped. North Beach is a non- local (western Long Island) brushed interior also related to Vinette 2 and before Windsor Brushed Woodland (Smith 1950:134, 135, 193-195; Smith in Truex 1982:239).

Ritchie (1965:39) had interpreted Smith’s descriptions as an Early Woodland Period assignment for Vinette 1 (interior cordmarked)and both North Beach Brushed and Matinecock Point Stamped (Vinette 2) pottery. However, Funk (1993:154) revised Vinette 2 pottery as Early to Middle Woodland Period, at least for upstate.

The Carroll Site in East Hampton produced an interior cordmarked Vinette 1 pot sherd on the same level as North Beach Brushed sherds. The assumption made was that they were both associated with the Early Woodland (Smith 1950:134, 135, 193-195; Smith in Truex 1982:239; Cammisa et al 1999A). The Robinson Sites- Wetland Focus had Matinecock Point Stamped pottery associated with Clearview Stamped pottery of the Middle Woodland Period (Cammisa et al 1999B).

For interpretation of the Payne Site, therefore, we will include Matinneock-like pot sherds as Early to Middle Woodland and North Beach-like pot sherds as Early Woodland.

Windsor Windsor Sebonac Clearview Matinecock North Brushed Cordmark Stamped stamped? Beach? 80205944

PIPES Two pipe bowl fragments with incised decoration were recovered from TU’s 6 and 13. The largest fragment exhibits an incised checkerboard design with a rectangle above it. This design does not match any known Long Island or New York City pottery designs.

It may be an example of Abbott Zone-Incised or some related ware. Abbott and its related wares occur in New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, and extend into eastern New York. It is not well dated but appears to be late Middle Woodland. However, Photo 11-inset, is the Overpeck-like pipe bowl from the Industrial Terrace Site in Pennsylvania and it is from the Late Woodland Period (Inashima 2008:p.c., see also Funk, 1976: 292-293). It looks quite similar in design to the checkerboard piece on the Payne Site.

ECOFACTS

Shell Fish:

Clam Oyster Scallop Slipper Whelk unident. shell 566 31 89 3 1 85

24 Bone:

Mammal Bird Sea Mammal Water Bird Fish 34 12 1 3 34

Floral Analyses by Justin McKnight

Flotation processing of a site total of 34.25 liters of feature fill from eleven features at the Payne site yielded 7.62 grams of carbonized plant material (a mean average of 0.22 grams per liter of processed feature fill). An inventory of recovered plant macro-remains is provided in Table 03.

Wood charcoal dominated the feature assemblage, accounting for over 93 percent (by weight) of the recovered archeobotanical remains. Wood charcoal was present in all features analyzed, being most abundant within the flotation sample analyzed from Feature 10(2). Carbonized wood fragments were generally small and abraded, and their poor condition limited taxonomic classification (45% of the wood assemblage was unidentifiable). Maple (Acer sp.) (11% [n=244]) and pine (Pinus spp.) (10%) species were the most common wood types identified, followed by hickory (Carya sp.) (5%) and oaks (Quercus spp.) (4%). Inconclusive woods classified include ring porous (2%), coniferous (3%) and deciduous (16%).

Nutshell remains were scanty site wide, with nutshell occurring in 6 of the 13 samples analyzed. Thick walled hickory (Carya sp.) nutshell was the sole taxon identified. A site total of 37 fragments weighing 0.35 grams was recovered.

Carbonized seed remains were also limited within the Payne site flotation samples. Four carbonized seeds were recovered (Features 1(2), 3, 4, and 10(2)). Two seeds were clearly identifiable as grape (Vitis sp.). The remaining 2 specimens were fragmentary and were unidentifiable.

Miscellaneous plant remains were limited to 7 fragments of amorphous carbon (0.12 grams) recovered from Features 8 and 12.

Non-carbonized seeds were present in 92% of the analyzed flotation sample from the Payne site. Pigweed (Amaranthus sp.), carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata), poke (Phytolacca Americana), knotweed or dock (Polygonum/Rumex), raspberry or blackberry (Rubus spp.) elder (Sambucus canadensis) and nightshade (SOLANACEAE) were identified. These seeds are probably modern in origin, and are unrelated to prehistoric activities at the site.

Discussion The archeobotanical assemblage analyzed from this Fort Pond site provides important data regarding site subsistence and local landscape conditions during the Late Woodland period.

The presence of hickory nutshells and grape suggest that wild-gathered edible harvests were important to the subsistence economy of the site. These food plant remains indicated that fall-gathered mast resources and fleshy fruits were consumed and perhaps stored for winter use. The analyzed assemblage provides no evidence of plant cultivation.

Some inferences regarding the prehistoric landscape in the vicinity of Fort Pond can be made based on the botanical remains recovered from archaeological contexts. The physical features of Montauk are unique, with vegetation being

25 largely influenced by the area’s surface and groundwater characteristics, soils, and proximity to the coast. Ecological communities have evolved through a unique combination of factors: The effect of maritime winds on the area have been considerable, creating a scoured landscape and inhibiting natural reforestation of cleared areas; Erosion of land mass has also changed the shape of vegetative communities within the project area; Livestock grazing over much of the region has been intense since the area was settled in the first half of the seventeenth century; and intentional burning of the area has been conducted by Native American and European peoples for many centuries (Taylor 1923:10).

Native forest cover over the project area was characterized by a mixed hardwood forest and areas of grassland. Historically, forested areas of Montauk were dominated by oak forests (Quercus velutina, Q. alba, and Q. coccinea), with hickory (Carya tomentosa, C. glabra), pine (Pinus spp.) and American chestnut (Castanea dentata). The wood charcoal and nutshell remains recovered from this data recovery effort at the Payne site – representing maple, pine, oak and hickory species – are entirely consistent with the pre-contact forest cover of the region (Braun 1950:250-253).

These data from the Payne site complement initial archeobotanical studies conducted at the site. A single flotation sample analyzed from Feature 4 (formerly Feature 2) as part of Phase II testing at Payne documented the presence of oak and hickory wood charcoal, hickory nutshell, amorphous carbon, and non-carbonized seeds (McKnight 2003).

Faunal Analysis by Thomas Amorosi

GENERAL BIOGEOGRAPHICAL AND PALEOECONOMIC OBSERVATIONS: The location of the Payne site is ideal for the exploitation of both the literal zone of the Great Peconic Bay area and near shore waters of the Atlantic. Both the avian and mollusk remains point to foraging along the bay side of the site area, while the marine cod fish indicate a near shore fishing capability of the Payne site residents. The site’s floral remains (A. Cammisa pers com. 2008) indicate a late Fall to early Winter occupation of the Payne site. This would fit well with the species recovered in the avian, marine fish and mollusk remains at the Payne site. The site area today is known for its migratory water fowl, marine fish runs and large mollusk beds. This representation is also consistent with what Waters reported for the Martha’s Vineyard archaeofauna (Waters in Ritchie 1969).

The Payne site archaeofauna exhibits a similarity to other coastal island assemblages’ mammalian components. Ritchie (1969) had conducted a series of six excavations along the coastline of Martha’s Vineyard. These sites date from the Middle Archaic to the Late Woodland time periods. Both white-tailed deer and seals have been identified in these archaeofauna.2 Deer appear as the major mammalian component while three seal species were reported as trace species. The relative percentages of deer in the mammalian components of the Martha’s Vineyard assemblages varies from 95.4-99.1% in the Archaic, 97.5-98.9% in the Middle Woodland and 95.8-98.8% in the Late Woodland. Similarly the Payne site

2 The faunal identifications were done by Dr. Joseph Waters, who identified both the gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) and the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) in the Hornblower II (M49SE-28, Waters in Ritchie 1969: 43-52)), Cunningham (M50NW-5, Waters in Ritchie 1969: 80-85), Vicent (M50NW-28, Waters in Ritchie 1969: 154-160), Peterson (M49SE-37, Waters in Ritchie 1969: 189-192) and Howland (M49SE-36, Waters bin Ritchie 1969: 200) sites. 26 deer’s relative percentage constitutes 95% of the mammalian component (Table 3).

The Payne site’s one seal remain is a fragmentary bulla that was partially burnt. Unfortunately the morphological characters needed to distinguish species is missing from the broken bulla and could only be assigned to a Family level designation. The Martha’s Vineyard seal remains are represented by three seal species. The gray seal (Halichoerus grypus) is the most frequent, followed by the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and a rare occurrence of the harp or ice seal (P. groenlandica)3. Seal relative percentages vary from .4-3.9% in the Archaic, .09-.6% in the Middle Woodland and .08-.9% in the Late Woodland time periods. Although similar, the Payne site has a higher relative percentage of 5%. While these numbers are tempting from a Paleoeconomic standpoint, in that there is a decrease of seal hunting on Martha’s Vineyard over time, this type of interpretation is prone to error. Sampling strategies, recovery methods, site taphonomy and stochastic statistical noise need to still be accounted for in this type of comparison.

BUTCHERY, MEAT UNITS AND SEASONAL INDICATORS: Unfortunately the sample size of this collection is small and very fragmented. This almost precludes any discussion of butchery, meat units and an assessment of critical seasonal indicators. There are no cut marks or other indicators of butchery in this assemblage. The small sample size of this archaeofauna yields very little information of skeletal element representation.

The one clue of butchery and meat units can be found within the deer remains. All of the deer bone fragments are from long bones and are fractured in a pattern consistent with the extraction of marrow from the medullary cavity (Binford 1978). If this is correct, then perhaps an argument can be made for a seasonal indicator. Deer are known to build a higher fat reserve in the Fall in order to survive through the Winter/ Spring seasons. The one long bone that could be aged (Table 8) places the time of death between 14-19 months. This would age the individual as a long-yearling with a possible seasonal date of late Summer to early Fall.

TAPHONOMIC OBSERVATIONS: In Table 4, the degree of bone weathering for all bone fragments is noted. The majority of the observations fall between Behrensmyer’s stages 0-1, which represents 79.2% of the collection. This indicates an assemblage that was quickly buried and not exposed to much biological and chemical weathering.

Bone fragmentation is recorded in Table 5. Unlike many other area archaeofauna, the Payne assemblage is highly fragmented, where the majority of bones are from <.25" to .50". This would suggest that there was active trampling and ground movement (consistent with a plow zone or modern road and house construction) over the site area. This is supported by the observation of a relatively high number of incidents of recent mechanical damage to the bone remains.

There has been some thought that the Payne site represents a late Fall to early Winter encampment rather than a processing site (A. Cammisa pers. com 2008). The fact there is only a few instances of burnt and calcine bone (see Table 6) does not support either view. It stands to reason that a higher degree of burnt bone for a cold weather encampment could be expected. But with such a small sample size collection it may be that this taphonomic signature is archaeologically invisible. Arguments of site sampling problems, an unknown

3 The harp seal is known to occurred as far south as Long Island’s eastern end and is more common north of Cape Cod. 27 bone midden that could contain a higher frequency of burnt bone should also be considered.

Radiocarbon Results: by Beta Analytic Inc. of Miami, Florida

Beta number 2 Sigma Date 1 Sigma Date Conventional Material & FT # Range Range Radiocarbon Age 243694 Cal BC 10 to AD 30 to 120 1930 +/- 40 charred nut FT 2 Cal AD 140 (BP 1920- BP material (Cal BP 1960 to 1830) 1810) 243695 Cal BC 820 to BC 800 to 780 2600 +/- 40 charred nut FT 6 760 (BP 2750- BP material (Cal BP 2770 to 2730) 2710 243696 Cal AD 130 to AD 220 to 260 1780 +/- 40 charred nut FT 7 350 (BP 1730- BP material (Cal BP 1820 to 1690) 1600) AD 290 TO 320 (BP 1660- 1630) 243697 Cal AD 230 to AD 250 TO 390 1720 +/- 40 charred nut FT 8 410 (BP 1700- BP material (Cal BP 1720 to 1560) 1540) 241892 Cal BC 1130 to BC 1080-980 2860 +/- 40 charred nut FT 10 920 (BP 3030- BP material (Cal BP 3080 to 2930) 2870

CULTURAL INTERPRETATIONS

Introduction Taken as a whole, the Payne Site appears to represent an intensively used, very recurrent series of procurement/processing camps and base camps. These hunter- gatherers utilized this site possibly as early as the Paleoindian and the Middle Archaic Periods, through the Late Archaic and Transitional Periods, Early Woodland, Middle and Late Woodland Periods. The small area of the site, likely influenced by topography which may have inhibited extensive use, would appear to dissuade the interpretation for a “village” although the intensive use, during most prehistoric periods, is apparent. Thirteen features, over 5500 artifacts and over 800 ecofacts were recovered within an approximate 1/8 acre

28 area situated on a small, dry, moderately sloped area squeezed in between steep slopes directly over looking Fort Pond. The lake is about 40 feet away (west) and 10 feet lower in elevation than the nucleus (heaviest utilized) portion of the site. An Indian foot trail also likely existed along or nearby Montauk Highway.

Taken as a whole, activities across the site, irrespective of temporal affiliation, included:

-Wild Game Procurement (Hunting) as evidenced by 35 points and 2 preforms (indication of intention) between Late Woodland and Paleoindian Periods. Mammal and bird bones also recovered, many from cooking features.

-Fishing Procurement (Sea Hunting)) interpreted from 3 netsinkers, as well as 34 fish bones and 1 sea mammal bone, many from cooking features.

-Shellfish Procurement (Gathering) Over seven hundred shell fragments, most of which were from cooking related features and most of which were clam shell.

-Meat & Hide Processing (Butchering) as shown by 47 bifaces, 7 scrapers, 6 utilized flakes (quickie tools), 5 knives, 2 choppers, and 1 uniface.

-Wild Plant Procurement (Gathering) from hickory nutshell and grape remains from cooking features.

-Wild Plant Processing from 5 grounstone, which included manos/mullers, and at least 1 hammerstone/pestle, and a nutting stone.

-Food Processing (from Hunting &/or Gathering) as shown by 1753 fire cracked rock or about 34.5 percent of the stone artifact inventory, used to cook food, as well as 475 pottery sherds to hold the cooked food in. Thirteen cooking related features, 3 of which are shell middens, which contained a variety of mammal, fish, bird bone and assortment of shellfish.

-Ceremonial activity evidenced by a paint pot and smoking pipe(s).

-Stone Tool Quarrying (Procurement or initial stages of lithic reduction) shown by 26 cores, 6 tested cobbles, 196 primary flakes, 15 hammerstones (several of which were quite large).

-Stone Tool Production (Processing or final stage of lithic reduction) shown by 2235 tertiary flakes, 649 secondary flakes, 15 hammerstones (a few of which were small sized), 2 preforms, 47 bifaces, and 2 burins.

-Other Craft as shown by the 3 drills/perforators.

Diagnostic artifacts are most heavily represented by Middle to Late Woodland occupations. Levanna points and Windsor Brushed pottery sherds account for the most numerous dateable artifacts by type. Pottery sherds in general account for most of the dateable artifacts, although many of the sherds are badly deteriorated. Middle to Late Woodland people appear to have re-occupied old habitation areas across the entire site, likely re-using or intruding into old features and pot-hunting old artifacts.

It had been previously speculated, during past investigations on site, that the

29 Payne Site may have been utilized during the colder months, due partially to observation of topographic conditions. The site appears to face southwesterly, looking out over the lake. A south facing camp would take use of the sun’s light and warmth, most appreciated during colder months (Cammisa et al 2003A). Also, a rise in topography is at the “back” of the site to the northeast, protecting the prehistoric inhabitants from much of the cold north wind.

Hickory and/or grape remains were found in a half dozen cooking features. The food remains both appear to indicate a fall to winter occupation during the time the pits were used, initially, at least, between the Transitional, Early Woodland Period and Middle Woodland Periods. However, faunal (bone) remains in one area, suggest a tentative summer to early fall occupation. Also, certain types of shellfish, such as oyster which was recovered in small amounts on site, might only be available under water (not marshland) and could indicate a diving strategy and warm season strategy.

Soils and Stratigraphy Soil stratigraphy on the Payne Site is similar to the nearby DeSousa Site. Both sites have intact soil horizons which have a similar color and texture. Both sites have a well defined, mottled A/B horizons interface, which can be thick in places. Although both sites have intact stratigraphy, they also both appear to have no cultural stratigraphy (Cammisa et al 2008).

Cultural stratigraphy is lacking due to overlapping, continuous successive visits in a very small locale. Later people built hearths, pits, ovens, or created middens over and through the previous occupants, tens, hundreds, or thousands of years previous. Later occupants may have, and likely, pot-hunted their predecessors artifacts.

Cultural stratigraphy on site is somewhat similar to that of the Carroll Site (Bianco Estate) on Three Mile Harbor. On the Bianco Estate there were continuous recurrent visits for about 6,000 years. Later occupants built hearths over old hearths, likely reusing hearth rock from the previous occupants. A root cellar was built though a previous Archaic base camp and the root cellar occupants pot- hunted and likely recycled the ancients artifacts (Cammisa et al 1999A).

Note: Since cultural stratigraphy is apparently disturbed, associated tasks related to artifact types and cultural affiliation are speculative. Any spatial analysis and intrasite patterns derived at are based largely on diagnostics and/ or carbon-dated features.

Floral remains such as the hickory nut and grape seed recovered from the Payne Site and including sizable amounts of charcoal for radiocarbon from these early time periods on Long Island are rare. This is due, largely, the senior author’s opinion, to the sandy nature of coastal plain soils. This appears to be a common problem across the Coastal Plain (McKnight 2008:p.c.)

Success for floral recovery, however, improves a bit on later period sites, particularly Late Woodland and Contact Periods. The nearby Late Woodland Star Island Site on Lake Montauk in Montauk produced wood charcoal from oak and hickory which was radiocarbon dated to A.D. 1420 to 1490. This site also contained loamy soils similar to the Payne Site (Cammisa et al 2003B). The multi-component Carroll Site on Three Mile Harbor in East Hampton produced no floral remains from prehistoric features, however, corn remains were recovered from a barrel stain at the bottom of a root cellar from the Contact Period component (Cammisa et al 1999A).

Long Islands forest community is described largely as a Pine-Oak forest, common

30 to coastal plains and their inherent “dry” sandy soils. Although other nut trees such as chestnut and hickory were present, they may have been limited to the loamier soils on the island and which are more common upstate. Hickory trees need “moist” soils (Little 1984:352). Loamy soils also appear to “hold” features and their floral remains better. Loamy soils do occur on the Payne Site, as do both features and floral remains from an early period, as did nearby hickory trees.

It is also interesting to note that fish bone remains are generally lacking on Long Island where one would expect, theoretically, to find ample amounts due to the maritime/coastal geography. Virtually all of the fish remains on the Payne Site were found in association with shell, which may have acted as an alkaline preservative.

PALEOINDIAN PERIOD

Tentative evidence for a Paleoindian occupation comes from one broken artifact. A possible mid to late Paleoindian styled unfluted point of white quartzite was recovered. It appears that approximately between 10,000 to 8,000 years ago the property was first utilized by these mega-sized game hunters following large waterways of the bay and/or ocean and likely stopping over at Fort Pond, utilizing the lake as a sheltered haven and portage stop. This may be the first evidence of Paleoindian occupation on Montauk.

The Paleo point was recovered in the western portion of the site nearer the water. The point itself is indicative of hunting activity.

Figure 4 shows the subsurface contours of Fort Pond. As one can see, about half of the pond is rather shallow at about 5 feet. It is always possible that early sites, such as Paleoindian, are located, or were located, within the current lake in these shallow areas. The shallow areas may have been marshes or marshy at one point. The Payne Site is situated where the lakes deepest section is close to shore due to a steep subsurface slope.

Since sea levels were perhaps a couple of hundred feet lower, the portage may have been longer, unless there were temporary glacial meltwater channels to travel down. (Between 20 to 12 thousand years ago, Montauk may have been cut off from the mainland by a glacial meltwater channel) (see Environment & Prehistoric Setting chapters).

Since the point was found in level 3 (interface) it is very possible that it was moved from its original vertical position. We might have expected any Paleoindian artifact to be encountered beneath Archaic and Woodland Period strata and not in the same strata.

MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD

Ephemeral evidence for this period is limited to one point, a Neville Stemmed Point of reddish quartzite. This was recovered further back from shore than the Paleoindian point, about midway between the steep slopes in this locale. Sea levels at this time were still thought to be lower, about 10 feet, than today.

31 The point is indicative of hunting. As with the Paleoindian occupation, more evidence from this level may be under the shallow waters of Fort Pond.

Since the point was found in level 3 (interface) it is also possible that it was moved from its original vertical position. We might have expected any Middle Archaic artifact to be encountered beneath Late Archaic and Woodland Period strata and not in the same strata.

LATE ARCHAIC & TRANSITIONAL PERIODS

Artifact densities, as judged from the features, are high compared to the rest of the site occupations.

Activities associated with these bands appear to include: -Hunting (Brewerton, Vosburg, Wading River, points, Orient Fishtail preform) -Fishing (fish bone from FT’s) -Cooking (FCR, hearth feature, seed, nut, bone, shell, midden feature) -Gathering (muller fragments, nutting stone, shell) -Tool making-final reduction (preform, biface, tertiary flakes) -Butchering/Hide processing (knives, uniface, biface, preform)

Spatial analysis indicate the following site patterning: -Late Archaic-Transitional folk appeared to occupy all the Payne site, although, most of the activity appears closest to the shore.

During the Late Archaic sea levels were thought to range about 10 feet lower and 10 feet higher than today. If sea levels were 10 feet higher, the water edge may have reached the edge of the Payne Site near FT’s 1, 3, and 10.

During the Transitional Period, sea levels apparently began to stabilize since the later part of the Late Archaic leading to more extensive marsh eco-systems but may have been about 10 feet lower than present.

-Feature 1 appears to have been a large hearth. More accurately, it appears to have been a series of 3 or more small adjacent hearths (see Carroll Site below). This feature tentatively appears to have been first utilized during the Late Archaic Period as judged from a Wading River and a Brewerton Side Notched point found within the FT, and a Brewerton Eared point found adjacent to it. However, although these are classic Late Archaic points, they are being interpreted as Transitional because of their association with FT 10.

(However, this FT also has diagnositc artifacts which included Windsor Cordmarked pottery and a Levanna point from the Late Woodland Period. The presence of the conflicting diagnostics could be explained by either a re-use of the hearths, or some other accidental or purposeful intrusion. It is notable that a 1983 quarter was also recovered from this FT).

Ecofacts recovered from the hearth(s) included grape seed, fish bone, clam shell and some oyster shell. Artifacts included 3 muller fragments, a nutting stone, biface, preform, uniface, knives, as well as debitage.

The associated (multiple) hearth feature activities from FT 1 appear to include, hunting, butchering/hide processing, gathering and processing of plants, fishing, shell fish gathering, and tool making.

32 -Feature 10 was a Late Archaic to Early Woodland (Transitional) Period shell midden, based on carbon dating at 1130 to 920 B.C. from a hickory nut This FT was stratigraphically located directly under FT 1, multiple hearths.

Recovered remains from the midden included 124 clam and scallop shell of near equal proportions, hickory nut, grape seed, 16 bone fragments of white tail deer, cod fish, ling fish, shark, pottery, 45 FCR, a hammerstone, 3 bifaces (1 strike-a-light), a core, all types of debitage.

Cod, shark, and ling could be caught with nets (Amorosi 2008:p.c.). A netsinker was recovered in TU 12, near FT 10/midden and FT 1/hearths.

Features 10 and 1 may have represented a recurrent visits. However, this midden feature (FT 10) was most probably produced during the same occupation as the multiple hearth feature (FT 1). An easy method to opening shell is to heat them up. The midden may have been dug through the hearth (most likely scenario) or the shells put in the ground and then the hearth constructed over it. The FT 10 shell midden may have been likely expanded and used as an all-around junk heap upon leaving the camp site.

Hickory nuts also produce an oily food from pounded kernels steeped in boiling water and known as hickory milk. It could be used in cooking corn cakes and hominy (Little 1984:353). The nutting stone and muller recovered from FT 1 hearth could be used to process the hickory nut from FT 10 midden.

If we assume that all or most of the recovered artifacts from FT’s 1 and 10 during this period, the site type designation would be base camp. Feature 3 also appears to be related to FT’s 1 and 10.

-FT 3 was another nearby hearth, about ½ meter away from the FT 1 hearth complex, with 1 diagnostic artifact, a Vosburg point from the Late/Terminal Archaic Period.

(However, there was also a unidentifiable pottery sherd in this FT which may indicate an intentional re-use or intrusion or an unintentional disturbance from the Woodland Period or later.)

Items recovered from here, not including the FCR, included all the flake variants and shatter, a biface, a core, and 13 shell.

Another, elongated, “spear-like”, Vosburg point was recovered nearby (TU 4) FT 1 (see below-Carroll Site).

If one were to look at the 4 or more adjacent hearths represented by FT’s 1 and 3, and draw a center line, north to south, between them, it would be apparent that 2 Vosburg points came from west of the centerline (FT 3)and 2 Brewerton points and a Wading River point came from east of the centerline (FT’s 1 & 10) (Figure 16).

-FT 13 Oven pit, located further up-slope from the shore, with a Wading River point, 15 large FCR, hammerstone, biface, a core, debitage, 2 mammal bone, 9 fish bone, and 10 shell.

(However, this FT also produced unidentifiable pottery sherds which appear to indicate some re-use, intrusion or other or disturbance, intentional or not).

Stratigraphy Late Archaic artifacts were recovered in levels 2b (topsoil) to 3a (interface)

33 and in conjunction with Woodland artifacts and sometimes twentieth century artifacts. It is the authors opinion that most of the Late Archaic remains recovered from Long Island are encountered in the upper subsoil. A portion of the Payne Site artifacts from this period were likely moved by later visitors to the site, both prehistoric and modern. Also, level 3, where many artifacts from this period were recovered, was the interface of the subsoil and topsoil. Artifacts in the upper mottled subsoil may have been picked up along lower mottled topsoil. Topsoil may have been descending on site by natural processes. Compounding this was the fact that the Phase II was conducted 5 years ago and at that time only Woodland Period artifacts were encountered (see Cammisa 2003A).

Regional Inter-Site Settlement Patterns: A)If FT 1 is indeed adjacent multiple hearths, it is reminiscent of the multiple hearths found at Three Mile Harbor in East Hampton at the Carroll Site:

1) The Carroll Site had adjacent hearths, 5 or more, within ½ meter to 3 meters from each other, similar to FT’s 1 and 3 at the Payne Site; 2) Diagnostic artifacts encountered around the Carroll Site hearths (many in situ) included multiple Lamoka points north of the center line, and a Popular Island point and a Orient Fishtail point south of the center line. The Payne Site also included different sets of diagnostics on either side of a center-line (local quartz & quartzite Brewertons & Wading River vs chert Vosburgs); 3) The Carroll site included a chert “spear-like” Lamoka and the Payne site, a chert spear-like Vosburg, 4) On the Carroll Site, an Early Woodland artifact, Vinette 1, interior cordmarked pottery, was recovered in association with typically Late Archaic points. Across the site, Early Woodland pottery were found on the same stratigraphic level as Late Archaic points, implying some sort of relationship. The interpretation was that the period was Transitional with early pottery similar to Ritchies (1965) observations at the Stony Brook Site (see below). The Payne Site had typical Late Archaic points associated with a shell midden carbon dated to largely Early Woodland Period (by upstate comparison), 1130 to 920 B.C. A possible Vinette pot sherd was found nearby (different level though); 5)Artifacts associated with the multiple hearths on both sites included groundstone, pecked stone (hammerstone vs. nutting stone), as well as points, bifaces, preform, and scraping tools (scraper vs. uniface) (see Cammisa et al 1999A). 6) Both the Payne and Carroll sites were occupied at this time, Transitional, across the entire site. However, most of activity appeared close to the water line.

Discussions on the multiple hearths at the Carroll Site centered around the recurrent versus extended family theories and so we have the same scenario played out on our current investigation, the Payne Site. Interpretations at the Carroll Site hearths favored an exogamous, matrilocal, or ambilocal, extended family use without ruling out the recurrent possibility. One of the reasons for the extended family theory was that the site, being situated on a low bluff, on a tidal inlet, could offer a bountiful resource for maritime hunters and gatherers. Such an environment could support larger populations and might necessitate larger groups to extract some of those maritime resources. At the Carroll Site we had more theory than proof that those extended hearth inhabitants were maritime or coastal hunter-gatherers. There was little in the way of ecofacts and the only artifact was a spear-like Lamoka point that could have been used as a fishing harpoon (Cammisa et al 1999A).

However, on the Payne Site we have bone from large sea fish such as shark and cod, shell middens, netsinkers, and a spear-like Vosburg (providing that some

34 of these artifacts were not deposited by Woodland Period intruders) showing a heavy reliance on littoral resources.

B) At the Stony Brook Site, Ritchie (1965:27-28) encountered what appeared to be adjacent hearths. One of the hearths had a midden underneath it. The radiocarbon date for the midden was 2900 B.P. (+/-250yrs), Late Archaic-Early Woodland Transitional Period. Late Archaic points and Early Woodland pottery were also recovered from this site. This is similar to the Payne Site (FT 1) as well as the Carroll site.

Although the Stony Brook Site may have had a bit more variety in mammals eaten, there were no fish bones or related fishing equipment (artifacts).

C) The Rockhill Site is located directly across Fort Pont on Shepards Neck. Shepards Neck is easily visible from the Payne Site. It is just a short canoe hop from the cove at the Payne Site to the neck at the Rockhill Site. Rockhill Site had a Late Archaic component which was interpreted as a recurrent small base camp. Spatial analysis of the site provided an interpretation for 2 separate activity areas as recurrent small base camps. A variety of artifacts and associated tasks were recovered including fire cracked rock (FCR), flakes, points, including a Snook Kill variant, groundstone, unifaces, a preform, and a core. The site appears to spread across the entire neck. Because of the sites position, high on a bluff, susceptible to strong winds, it was thought to be utilized in the warmer months (Cammisa et al 1999C, Cammisa 2000). On the contrary, the Payne site is thought to have been used mostly during the colder months, due to grape and hickory nut remains (as well as topographic conditions).

EARLY WOODLAND

Artifact densities, as judged from the features, are low to moderate compared to the rest of the site occupations.

Early Woodland folks were hunting meat and gathering wild foods processing/cooking them in a hearth, and possibly an oven, on site. Diagnostics from this era include a Rossville point, and a small sample of “possible” Early Woodland style pottery sherds such as interior cordmarked (Vinette 1), North Beach Brushed, and Matinecock Stamped (Vinnete 2). However, these interpretations are tentative at best due to the badly deteriorated condition and small size of the sherds. In addition, an Orient Fishtail preform was also recovered. This point appears to extend from the Terminal Archaic through the Early Woodland Periods (see Funk 1993). The artifact density from these two cooking features (FT’s 6 and possibly 12) are in the middle range (Figure 7).

Activities associated with these small bands appear to include: -Hunting (Rossville point, Orient Fishtail preform) -Gathering (nut and shell from FT) -Stone tool production (debitage, possible hammerstone, core & tested cobble) -Cooking (hearth feature, possible Early Woodland pottery, possible oven FT)

Spatial analysis indicate the following site patterning: -Most of the Early Woodland occupation, as judged from diagnostics alone (artifacts and features), appeared to be further back from the shoreline. Sea levels at this time were thought to range 10 feet higher and 10 feet lower than today.

-Feature 6 was an Early Woodland Period hearth in a small basin. It was carbon

35 dated to 820 to 760 B.C. Associated remains of the hearth, other than the FCR, were hickory nut, 9 shell, all forms of debitage.

Groundstone was recovered in TU’s 22 (muller/mano) and 17 (hammerstone/mano), next to FT 6, which could have been used to process hickory nuts.

-Feature 12 was an oven pit. The tenuous affiliation is due solely to a “possible” Matinecock Point Stamped pot sherd. This feature also contained shell, flakes, a tested cobble, a hammerstone, and core.

(However, FT 12 also had Middle to Late Woodland pot sherds recovered from within it. This could imply a later re-use or some impact, intentional or unintentional. It is also likely that the FT is a Middle to Late Woodland FT and my interpretation of the badly deteriorated Matinnecock sherd is wrong). Regional Inter-Site Settlement Patterns: -Early Woodland, Vinette 1, interior cordmarked pottery as well as North Beach Brushed pottery was found in association with Late-Terminal Archaic projectile points on the Carroll site at Three Mile Harbor as well as on the Stony Brook Site (Cammisa et al 1999A; Ritchie 1965).

MIDDLE WOODLAND

Evidence for single component Middle Woodland occupation comes from 3 radio- carboned features. Single component artifact types include Clearview Stamped (rocker stamped) pottery sherds and a Jack Reed point. However, most of the Middle Woodland diagnostic artifacts are mixed with Late Woodland types and dates. Artifact density as judged from radio-carboned features shows a light to moderate artifact density.

Activities associated with these bands appear to include: -Hunting (Jack Reef point, bird, duck, & mammal bones from FT’s) -Gathering (nuts and shell from FT’s) -Fishing (fish bone from FT’s) -Stone tool production (debitage) -Cooking (pottery, middens & cooking pit features)

Spatial analysis indicate the following site patterning: -Middle Woodland occupation, as judged by diagnostics (FT’s and artifacts, appears with more intensity further back from the shoreline. Sea levels may have been up to 10 feet lower than today.

-A shell midden feature (FT 2) was dated to 10 B.C. to A.D. 140 during the Middle Woodland Period. The carbon dating came from a hickory nut. Other ecofacts recovered included bone from codfish, other fish, duck, turkey, and mammal. Shell included mostly clam, which was the primary distinguishable characteristic of the FT, with some oyster, scallop, slipper, and cockle shell. Artifacts included 12 FCR, about 12 flakes, and 1 pottery sherd.

-FT 7 was a Middle Woodland Period cooking pit carbon dated to A.D. 130 to 350. Remains in the pit, other than FCR, included a Levanna point, hickory nut, 4 bird bone, 1 shark vertebra, 49 shell fragments (mostly clam), and all the flake varieties.

A netsinker was found in TU 14, near FT 7-cooking pit. As mentioned, shark can be caught with nets.

-FT 8 was a Middle Woodland midden carbon dated to A.D. 230 to 410. Recovered

36 remains from the midden included a Levanna point, 12 shell (clam and scallop), 20 bone fragments including mammal, bird, water bird, bony fish and shark, hickory nut, and 3 tertiary flakes.

A hammerstone/mano was recovered from TU 17 next to FT 8 and could have been used to process hickory nuts (this was also found near an Early Woodland feature with a nut).

Regional Inter-Site Settlement Patterns: -The Carroll Site on Three Mile Harbor also had a Middle Woodland component. Evidence for Middle Woodland folks here comes solely from their pottery remains. Rocker stamped pottery sherds were recovered in Area 6. In contrast to the Payne site, the Middle Woodland occupation at the Carroll Site was confined to a discrete locale (Cammisa et al 1999A).

The remains were largely associated with proposed hardpacked house floor on the bottom of the plow horizon. The floor feature measured about 3.4 meter east-west by 2.5 meters north-south. This approaches wigwam size, although no post molds were encountered. This component was located furthest back from the bluff line, about 210 feet (Cammisa et al 1999A).

-The Robinson Site-Wetland focus was likewise, in contrast to the Payne Site and similar to the Carroll site, confined to a small locale. It was situated close to a small freshwater wetland between the 14 to 20 foot contour along a flat spot. The nucleus of this small base camp was about 4 by 6 meters. A concentration of FCR was noted as the remains of a hearth approximately 1.5 meters in diameter. Fire cracked metate fragments and a mano were among the artifact types recovered. All of the Clearview Stamped (rocker stamped) pottery and most of the tools were recovered east of the hearth. All of the Matinecock Point Stamped pottery (except 1 small sherd) and 1 tool were recovered west from the hearth. Since they were recovered in the same stratigraphic levels, the question posed itself: recurrent or extended family? It was thought that the site represented an extended family with a matrilineal inclusion of pottery (Cammisa et al 1999B).

-Middle Mound was an extensive shell midden on the south shore of Nassau County which had been buried by rising water levels and the accompanying marsh. Three sections of the mound were left intact after previous construction activities. Area 1 was the largest section left intact and was measured at 48 feet by 43 feet in diameter and 8.2 feet thick. Three samples at different depths were taken for carbon dating. The 3 samples were dated at A.D. 670 (+/- 60 yr), A.D. 530 (+/-50yr.), and A.D. 540 (+/-60yr). The midden was almost solid layer of shell, mostly hard clam. However, small amounts of scallop, soft clam, mussel, oyster, and whelk were evident. Charcoal staining was also evident on sections of the midden and a large concentration/pile of charcoal was located nearby. The shell fishing appeared to begin as early as February to March and ending in June (Cammisa et al 1995).

There appears to be a tendency for prehistoric shell middens associated with the bay side of Long Island to be related to habitation (camp) sites. On the other hand, the shell middens reported along the ocean side of Long Island are associated mostly with large procurement stations. This is largely a result of geography (Cammisa et al 1995; Smith 1950; Boesch 2003; Bernstein 1993).

-The Black Walnut Site is located in the proposed Black Dirt Archaeological Park upstate. The past environment consisted of an extensive lake and inland marsh environment. A feature, FT 2, was a Middle Woodland pit feature which produced 23 artifacts including flakes and 2 points. One point is a classical Jack Reef

37 corner notch, the other is a possible, atypical Levanna point. Middle Woodland Period ecofacts from FT 2 included the remains of maple, hickory, ash, black walnut, white oak, white tail deer, other mammal, box turtles, sucker fish, other small sized fish, mollusks, and meadow voles. The FT measured 50 by 75 cm. in diameter and 19 cm. deep. The top portion was truncated by past plowing Cammisa et al 2004). About 1300 feet upslope, away from the cooking pit, was a suspected ceremonial sweat lodge from this same period (Cammisa et al 2004 & 2006).

MIDDLE TO LATE WOODLAND

Diagnostics from this period include Levanna points (most numerous point on site) and Windsor Brushed pottery (most numerous sherds on site), both of which date from Mid-Late Woodland. These diagnostics are often found in conjunction with possible Windsor Cordmarked pottery, Sebonac pottery from the Late Woodland or Clearview pottery, or possible Matinnecock pottery from the Middle Woodland. People from this period intruded into virtually all their predecessors remains. Density from diagnostics are high but artifact density in general is hard to derive based on the mix of these folks with their predecessors.

Activities associated with diagnostics (only) on site include: -Hunting (points) -Gathering (hickory nut from Phase 2) -Cooking (pottery, hickory nut from Phase 2) -Ceremonial/Smoking (smoking pipe remains)

Spatial analysis indicate the following site patterning: -Diagnostics from the Late Woodland (Sebonac & Windsor Cordmark pottery) and Mid to Late Woodland (Levanna points & Windsor Brushed pottery)were found virtually everywhere on site. However, the densest activity appears to be a bit further back from the shoreline. This pattern appears to be the opposite of the Late Archaic occupation. Judging from diagnostics only, it appears that either recurrent visits were so numerous or visiting groups so numerous, that these diagnostics smothered the small site.

-FT 4 This apparent cooking pit feature had Windsor Brushed pottery, dateable from the Middle Woodland to the Late Woodland, where it became more widely used. The previous Phase II excavations excavated the southerly half of this FT. At that time soil flotation and floral analyses shows that the pit contained hickory nut fragments as well as hearth rock (FCR). The only other artifacts recovered from here included the 24 pottery sherds from the current excavations. It appears that this feature may have been used but one time as a cooking pit in which a pot was placed with FCR. The pit measured up to 60 cm. deep and about 80 cm. or more wide (see also Cammisa et al 2003A).

Features across the site that were either re-used or intruded into:

-FT 12 (previously mentioned for the Early Woodland Period) is an oven with pottery styles from the Middle to Late Woodland Windsor Brushed and possible Late Woodland Windsor Cordmarked. This FT may have been re-used, as the oven also had a possible Matinecock Stamped pot sherd. Associated artifacts included 40 FCR, shell, hammerstone, core, and flakes.

-FT 1, multiple hearths, was initially used during the Late Archaic but diagnostics were also recovered from this period (as was a 1983 quarter). This

38 FT has diagnositc artifacts which included Windsor Cordmarked pottery and a Levanna point from the Late Woodland Period. The presence of the conflicting diagnostics could be explained by either a re-use of the hearth(s), or some other accidental or purposeful intrusion. Feature 1 has, by far, the highest artifacts density of any of the other features. This would appear to suggest, a heavy re-use. This all begs the question, were multiple hearths “added” during this period or just re-used? Were old hearths picked of FCR to create new hearths as reported on the Carroll Site (Cammisa et al 1999A)?

Local Regional Inter-Site Settlement Patterns: -The Rockhill Site, on Shepards Neck directly across the lake, also had a Late Woodland component. The site seems to reflect a small, specialized environmental niche taken advantage of for a short period time during this period. Artifacts from this site included a Madison point, a Levanna-like point, FCR, bifaces, an anvil, cores, debitage, and pottery with interior Windsor brushing. Spatial analysis here interpreted 3 different procurement/processing sites. Area 1 was a procurement and processing station for lithic reduction (lithic workshop), Area 2 was a procurement/processing station for hunting and gathering related activities, and Area 3 was a procurement/processing camp for both lithic reduction and butchering and hide processing. The arrowheads were found in Area 4 with little associated artifacts and this area was thought to be “hit or miss” site where hunters either hit or missed their prey with arrows. The site appears to spread across the entire neck. Access by canoe across Fort Pond would have been both easier and quicker to these activity areas from sites in the surrounding area from this period (see below) (Cammisa et al 1999C, Cammisa 2000).

-The Star Island Site, in Montauk, was located on Star Island, in Lake Montauk, had a Late Woodland component. This site was interpreted as a seasonal, and likely recurrent, small base camp with smaller procurement/processing camps. The site appears to have been utilized between AD 1420 to 1490 which is consistent with the later stages of the Late Woodland Period. Dating of the small base camp comes from 1 Madison like projectile point and a radiocarbon dating from a small amount of charcoal recovered from a cooking pit feature (FT2). Spatial analysis of the site revealed a small base camp with 2 cooking pits side by side, 2 separate procurement/processing camps with FCR were also reported. Artifacts included points, bifaces, FCR, uniface, preform, and flakes. Two cooking pits (FT’s 1 & 2) were dug side by side and dovetailed together in the center. This may have represented different pit functions or, again, an extended family cooking together. However, only male associated artifacts were recovered, no groundstone or pottery were recovered. Each pit measured about 60 cm. wide on top and 36 to 40 cm. deep. The base of FT 1 appeared to be flat, not conical. Artifacts from the features included flakes, a preform, core, and FCR (Cammisa et al 2003B).

-The DeSousa Site is situated close to the Payne Site, virtually around the corner and 2 blocks from Fort Pond. The Desousa Site represents, at minimum, a recurrent and robust procurement and processing camp and station for Late Woodland Period, likely co-gender, hunter-gatherers. The Late Woodland designation is interpreted form pottery sherds that have been identified as Windsor Brushed and Windsor Cordmarked. The presence of both appear to indicate Late Woodland, although there is also the possibility of a Middle to Late Woodland occupation. Pottery is endemic to the site, artifact density is moderate, and artifact diversity is moderate. This site, like the Payne Site, is located on a very small piece of property, about 1/3 acre, although the site extends back toward a small wetlands and off the property in all directions. One hundred eleven pottery sherds were recovered, representing about 39 percent of the artifact inventory, from virtually every TU and ST. Bifaces, scrapers,

39 hammerstones, a utilized flake, and a core were the tools collected. Fire cracked rock was also encountered and a pit feature.

The pit feature measured 45 cm. by 69 cm. in diameter and 30 cm. deep. Eleven artifacts/ecofacts were recovered from the pit which included pottery, flakes and 3 clam shell fragments. The presence of clam shell indicates a shoreline gathering strategy and a likely portage at Fort Pond. Similar pottery types as well as clam were recovered from the Payne Site.

Both sites, Payne and Desousa, have similar stratigraphy. They both have intact soil horizons which have a similar color and texture. Both sites have a well defined, mottled A/B horizons interface, which can be thick in places. Although both sites have intact stratigraphy, they also both appear to have no cultural stratigraphy, that is to say, that similar Woodland diagnostics are found in overlapping levels (Cammisa et al 2008).

-The Oyster Shores Site was a late Woodland Period site on the west bank of Three Mile Harbor. It was interpreted as a seasonal and recurrent small base camp/procurement-processing camps. Artifacts included debitage, a preform, FCR, pottery which included Sebonac Stamped and Windsor Cordmarked, and points. Spatial analysis interpreted 3 activity areas as a procurement/processing camp, a procurement/processing station, and a small base camp (Cammisa et al 2003C). Similar pottery types were recovered from the Payne, DeSousa and Carroll sites.

-Two other Late Woodland camps in Montauk, the Capurso site and Roseberry-Harvey site, appear to occupy low terraces overlooking small freshwater wetlands/swamps, similar to the DeSousa Site. The Capurso Site, Locus A is situated on a slight east facing slope. Locus B of the same site is situated on a south facing slope of the same swamp. A smaller freshwater wetlands is situated on the other north side, in essence between 2 swamps. The Roseberry- Harvey Site is situated on the north face of a similar slight slope overlooking a freshwater swamp (McLean 1998; Bernstein et al 1994). Another local Late Woodland site, Culloden Point Site (Area F) was situated on a flat terrace, overlooking a wetlands to the south (ILIA et al 1993). It appears from the artifact assembledge and single component nature of the sites, that Capurso and Culloden Point (Area F) may be base camps.

-The Carroll Site had a decided Late Woodland component with several points and some pottery fragments. The pot sherds contained Windsor Cordmarked, Sebonac Stamped and Windsor Brush-like (Middle to Late Woodland Periods). Points are Levanna (or Madison-like). This component was located within a plow zone. Spatial analysis showed 2 separate activity areas. One area was interpreted as a possibly recurrent base camp. An apparent house floor consisting of a hard pack earth at the bottom of the plow zone was reported. It measured 6 meters east-west by 3.85 meters north-south. Although no post molds were encountered at the time of the Phase III data recovery, 1 post mold was reported during previous Phase II testing. The base camp was about 120 feet back from the bluff line which was further back than the Archaic components which were close on the bluff line (Cammisa et al 1999A).

Other Late Woodland Period documented house floors include the Englebright 2 Site wigwam. This feature consisted of 19 post molds, 14 of which were arrange in a circle with many posts slanted toward each other. This floor pattern average 3 meters in diameter (2.5-3.5 meters). The McCauley Site produced a hardpacked earth floor at the bottom of an old plow zone. This measured 2 meters in diameter and contained all of the pottery on site and the heaviest amounts of FCR. Levanna points were associated with both sites (Cammisa et al 1999D: Cammisa et al 2002B).

40 -Two pipe bowl fragments were recovered on the Payne Site. They appear to be of a type known as Abbott Zone-Incised or a related ware. Although Abbott wares appear to be dated to late Middle Woodland, the Payne pipe bowl is thought to be Late Woodland because of its similarity to the Overpeck-like pipe bowl from the Late Woodland component of the Industrial Terrace Site in Pennsylvania. This could be a trade item. However, it is more likely the incised bowl design was brought to the Payne Site by exogamous intermarriage movement from New Jersey and or Pennsylvania. Perhaps the person that brought in this design element also brought in a cobble or two of raw jasper material as jasper is also from the same area (NJ & PA) and jasper artifacts were recovered on the Payne Site.

-A Late Woodland settlement pattern has been noticed for Long Island in regards to site patterns and personal space on working areas and social/eating areas. Late Woodland workshops appears to be situated in “front” of eating areas and “fronting” the water. The eating areas are therefore “behind” the working areas, further from the water, in a more protected arrangement.

A)On the McCauley Site in Setauket, a house floor was documented about 15 feet “behind” the lithic workshop which “fronted” (was closer to) Conscience Bay (Cammisa et al 1999D).

B)The Robinson Site-Ridge Focus was a Late Woodland procurement/processing site in Southampton overlooking Wooley Inlet. The site measured about 4 meters by 5 meters in diameter on a ridge overlooking the inlet. The west side half of this site consisted of a lithic workshop type (high tertiary flakes, bifaces, most finished points tossed to the north). The east/southeast side of the site was an eating area which contained pottery sherds, and soft shell clam and an unknown feature, probably related to eating/cooking, about 30 cm. wide and over 10 cm. deep. with pot sherds and clam inside. These people using the site looked out over the water while they worked. When they ate, they tuned around and ate, with their back to the water and their workshop. The distance from the tidal inlet where the clams were likely gathered to the site was about 950 feet (Cammisa et al 1999B).

C)The Englebright 2 Site had a lithic workshop on a ridge overlooking a tidal creek. A wigwam feature was “behind” the workshop, about 50 feet away, downhill in a more protected spot (Cammisa et al 2002B).

Although there are indications of lithic workshops across the Payne site (high amounts of tertiary flakes, biface, and/or preforms, etc), it virtually impossible to separate these into a cultural stratigraphy and affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken as a whole, the Payne Site appears to represent an intensively used, very recurrent series of procurement/processing camps and base camps. These hunter- gatherers utilized this site possibly as early as the Paleoindian and the Middle Archaic Periods, through the Late Archaic and Transitional Periods, Early Woodland, Middle and Late Woodland Periods. Thirteen features, including cooking pits, oven pits, hearths, and middens, as well as over 5500 artifacts and over 800 ecofacts were recovered within an approximate 1/8 acre area situated on a small, dry, moderately sloped area squeezed in between steep slopes directly over looking Fort Pond. The lake is about 40 feet away (west) and 10 feet lower in elevation than the nucleus (heaviest utilized) portion of the site.

41 Direct evidence for coastal resource extraction is present on the Payne Site. Netsinkers, as well as shark, cod, ling(cod), and seal faunal remains show what many Long Island sites were theorized should hold more of but were largely lacking.

Features carbon-dated to the Transitional Period, Early Woodland Period, and Middle Woodland Period have been documented at this portage haven on the lake.

Data recovery excavations at the Payne Site has yielded significant research information on prehistoric subsistence strategies, site patterns and both local and regional settlement patterns.

The area around Fort Pond, like that of Three Mile Harbor, is a treasure trove of archaeological information of prehistoric life-ways of Native Americans, their land use and cultural history. The town may want to consider making the Fort Pont ecosystem part of an archaeological district, like Flint Mine Archaeological District in Greene County or the proposed Black Dirt Archaeological District in Orange County.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amorosi, T. 1989 A Postcranial Guide to Domestic Neo-natal and Juvenile Mammals: The Identification and Aging of Old World Species. Oxford, U.K.: British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 533.

1996 Icelandic Zooarchaeology: New Data Applied to Issues of Historical Ecology, Paleoeconomy and Global Change. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York (UMI Dissertation Services Publication No. 9707064).

2007 The Animal and Human Remains from the 2005 Excavation of the Jean Hasbrouck House, Huguenot Street Historic District, New Paltz, New York. Unpublished CRM Ms. prepared for Jay R. Cohen Cultural Resource Consulting (54 West 16th Street, New York, New York 10011).

2008 personal communication.

Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1978 Taphonomic and Ecological Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 4: 150-162.

Binford, L. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

Bernstein, David J., Robert Cerrato, Patricia Crawford, Frank J. Dirrigl, Jr., Jennifer Esposito, Zsuzsu Jugl, Michael Juliano, Michael J. Lendari, Curtis W. Marean, Daria Merwin, John Shea, Annette Silver, Christian Torraca, Heather V.E. Wallace, Stephen Zuipp 1993 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Van Der Kolk Site, Mount Sinai, Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York. MS. On file with author, SUNY Stony Brook, & SHPO.

Bernstein, David, Michael Lenardi, and Daria Merwin 1994 A Combined Partial Stage I Survey and Stage II Evaluation of the Capurso Property, East Hampton, New York. Ms. on file with NYSHPO.

42 Boesch, Eugene, J 2003 Phase II Archaeological Investigation of the Glenwood Landing Shell Midden Site, Pisciotta Property project Area and Supplemental Phase IB Archaeological Investigation of the Pisciotta Property Project Area, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau county, New York. Ms. On file with author and SHPO.

Bradly, James W., Arthur E. Spiess, Richard A. Boisvert, and Jeff Boudrea 2008 What’s the Point?: Modal Forms and Attributes of Paleoindian Bifaces in the New England-Maritimes Region, in Archaeology of Eastern North America 36:119-172.

Braun, E. Lucy 1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blackburn Press. Caldwell, New Jersey.

Cammisa, Alfred G., Felicia Cammisa, Justine McKnight, M.A., Alexander Padilla 2008 The DeSousa Site: Phase II Archaeological Intensive Testing for the proposed DeSousa house construction Montauk, Town of East Hampton Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. #583.

Cammisa, Alfred G., Felicia Cammisa, Justine McKnight, Alexander Padilla 2006 The Black Walnut Island 2 Site - The Lot 1 Loci: A Late to Terminal Archaic Base Camp with a probable Ceremonial Middle Woodland Sweat Lodge Intrusion Extended Phase II Intensive Survey & Phase III Data Recovery Excavations Pine Island, Town of Warwick Orange County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. #441. Ms. On file with NYSHPO. Cammisa, Alfred G., Thomas Amorosi, Felicia Cammisa, William Goldsmith, Justine McKnight 2004 The Black Walnut Island 2 Site: Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations for the proposed Sodrick subdivision Pine Island, Town of Warwick, Orange County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. #323. Ms. On file with NYSHPO.

Cammisa, Alfred G., William Goldsmith, Alexander Padilla 2003C Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations at the Oyster Shore Road Site for a proposed subdivision on Oyster Shore Road Three Mile Harbor, Town of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. # 272. Ms. on file with NYSHPO & Town of East Hampton.

Cammisa, Alfred G., Felicia B. Cammisa, William Goldsmith, Justine McKnight 2003B The Star Island Site: Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations for the proposed Montauk Yacht Club expansion Montauk, Town of East Hampton Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. # 245. Ms. on file with NYSHPO & Town of East Hampton.

Cammisa, Alfred G., William Goldsmith, and Justine McKnight 2003A The Payne Site: Phase II Archaeological Intensive Testing for a proposed house site, Montauk, Town of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. # 241. Ms. On file with NYSHPO & Town of East Hampton.

Cammisa, Alfred G. 2002A Phase I Archaeological Investigation at the Payne property, Montauk, Township of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. #215. Ms. On file with NYSHPO & Town of East Hampton.

43 Cammisa, Alfred G., William Goldsmith, and Justine McKnight 2002B A Late Woodland Wigwam on Long Island: Phase III Data Recovery Excavations The Englebright 2 Site, Setauket, Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services, Inc. #185. Ms. On file with NYSHPO & Town of Brookhaven.

Cammisa, Alfred G. 2000 Phase I Archaeological Investigations at Endicott Terrace Montauk, Township of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York Ms. On file with NYSHPO & Town of East Hampton.

Cammisa, Alfred G., Thomas Amorosi, Felicia Cammisa, Diane Dallal, Joseph Diamond, William Goldsmith, Justine McKnight, and Nancy Stehling 1999A Six Thousand Years of Land Use at Three Mile Harbor, The Bianco Estate, Phase III Data Recovery of the Carroll Site, East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services. Ms. on file with NYSHPO.

Cammisa, Alfred G., Felicia B. Cammisa, William Goldsmith, Justine McKnight 1999B Personal Space within a Middle Woodland Small Base Camp and a Late Woodland Procurement Station: The Robinson Sites, Phase III Data Recovery Excavations, North Sea, Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER- Archaeology Services. Ms. on file with NYSHPO.

Cammisa, Alfred G., Felicia B. Cammisa and William Goldsmith 1999C Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the Rockhill Site, Montauk, Township of East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York. TRACKER-Archaeology Services. Ms. on file with NYSHPO.

Cammisa, Alfred G., William Goldsmith, Felicia Cammisa 1999D Archaeological Investigations at the McCauley Site, Strong’s Neck, Long Island, in Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association. Number 115.

Cammisa, Alfred, with William Sandy, Cheryl Claasen, and Felicia Burgos 1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Seaford Park Archaeological Site, in Journal of the New York State Archaeological association, Fall, #110.

Cavenaugh, James 1999 personal communication.

Ceci, Lynn 1990 Maize Cultivation in Coastal New York: The Archaeological, Agronomical, and Documentary Evidence, in North American Archaeologist. Baywood Publishing Company, Inc. Volume 11, #2. Editor Roger W. Moeller.

Curtin, Edward, Curtin Archaeological Consulting 2008 personal communication.

Diamond, Joseph, SUNY New Paltz, lithic artifact analyst this report 2008 personal communication

Funk, Robert. E 1993 Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State. Persimmon Press.

44 1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. NYS Museum & Science Service Memoir 22.

Gilbert, B.M. 1980 Mammalian Osteology. The Missouri Archaeological Society.

Gleason, H.A. 1962 Plants of the Vicinity of New York. New York Botanical Garden by Hafner Publishing Co., New York.

Hastorf, C.A., V.S. Popper, eds. 1988 Current Paleoethnobotany. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hoadley, Bruce 1990 Identifying Wood. Taunton Press, Inc. Newtown, Connecticut.

Keepax, Carole 1977 Contamination of Archaeological Deposits by seeds of Modern Origin with Particular Reference to the Use of Flotation Machines. Journal of Archaeological Science. 4:221-229.

Kricher, John C. and Gordon Morison 1988 The Peterson Field Guide Series: Eastern Forests of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

(ILIA) Institute for Long Island Archaeology - Department of Anthropology at Stony Brook, Historical Perspectives, Inc. and Annette Silver 1993 Stage I and Stage II Archaeological Examination of the Culloden Point Property, Montauk, New York. Ms. on file with NYSHPO.

Lavin, Lucianne 1988 Coastal Adaptations in Southern New England and Southern New York in Archaeology of Eastern North America. Volume 16, Fall.

Lewall, E.F. and I.M. Cowan 1962 Age Determination in Black-Tail Deer by Degree of Osification of the Epiphyseal Plate in the Long Bones. Canadian Journal of Zoology 41(4).

Little, Elbert L. 1984 The Audubon Society Field Guide To North American Trees: Eastern Region. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Lothrop, Jonathon C., Curator of Archaeology NYS Museum 2008 personal communication.

Martin A. and W. Barkely 1961 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in Archeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. American Antiquity 46:143-151

McKnight, Justine Woodard 2008 personal communication.

McKnight, Justine Woodard 2003 Flotation recovered Plant Remains from the Fort Pond Site, Phase II Investigations. Report submitted to Tracker Archaeology, Inc., Monroe

45 NY.

McLean, Jo-Ann 1998 Report: Archaeological Survey, Stage IA-Stage IB-StageII, Roseberry- Harvey Site, Montauk, New York. Ms. on file with NYSHPO.

Morales, A. and K. Rosenlund 1979 Fish Bone Measurements: An Attempt to Standardize the Measuring of Fish Bone from Archaeological Sites. Copenhagen: Steenstrupia.

O’Connor, T. 2003 The Analysis of Urban Animal Bone Assemblages: A Handbook for Archaeologists. The Archaeology of York, Principles and Methods 19/2. York, UK: Published for the York Archaeological Trust by the Council for British Archaeology.

Panshin, Alexis and Carl deZeeuw 1980 Textbook of Wood Technology. Volume 1, 4th edition. McGraw Hill, New York.

Pearsall, D. 2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Second Edition Academic Press, San Diego.

Rattray, Jeanette Edwards 1954 East Hampton History, including Genealogies of Early Families. Country Life Press, Garden City, New York.

Ritchie, William A. 1965 The Stony Brook Site and Its Relation To Archaic and Transitional Cultures on Long Island. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin 372. The University of the State of New York. The State Education Department, Albany, New York.

1969 The Archaeology of Martha’s Vineyard: A Framework for the Prehistory of Southern New England (A Study in Coastal Ecology and Adaptation). New York, Garden City: The Natural History Press (published for the American Museum of Natural History).

1980 The Archaeology of New York. New York: Harbor Hills Books.

1989 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum Bulletin #384. The University of the State of New York and the State Education Department, Albany, New York.

Ritchie, William A. and Robert E. Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast, in New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin. Memoir #20. The University of the State of New York and the State Education Department, Albany, New York.

Ruscillo, D., ed. 2006 Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones. Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxford, UK.: Oxbow Books.

Sirkin, Les 1995 Eastern Long Island Geology with Field Trips. Book and Tackle Shop, RI.

46 Smith, Carlyle Shreeve 1950 The Archaeology of Coastal New York. Volume 43: Part 2. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Stewart, Michael R. 1998 Ceramics and Delaware Valley Prehistory: Insights from the Abbott Farm Site. Trenton Complex Archaeology Report #14. Submitted to FAA & NJDOT by The Cultural Resource Group Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. East Orange, NJ.

Stone, Gaynell 1993 The History and Archaeology of the Montauk, in Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Volume 3. Suffolk County Archaeological Association.

Stone-Levine, Gaynell 1978 The Coastal Archaeology Reader: Selections from the New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin, 1954-1977 in Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Volume 2. Suffolk County Archaeological Association.

1980 Language and Lore of the Long Island Indians in Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Volume 4. Suffolk County Archaeological Association and Ginn Custom Publishing Company, Massachusetts.

Talmage, Ferris G. 1970 The Springs in the Old Days. The Steamboat Press. William Ewers, Printers, Sag Harbor.

Truex, James E. 1982 Second Coastal Archaeology Reader: 1900 to Present, in Readings in Long Island Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Volume 5. Suffolk County Archaeological Association.

Von Den Driesch, A. 1976 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum Bulletin 1. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University.

Wilson, B., C. Grigson and S. Payne, eds. 1982 Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Oxford, UK.: British Archaeological Reports, British Series 109.

Schopmeyer, C.S. 1974 Seeds of Woody Plants. Agricultural Handbook 450. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

Schuberth, Christopher J. 1968 The Geology of New York State and Environs. New York: Natural History Press.

Taylor, Norman 1923 Brooklyn Botanic Garden Memoirs, Volume II, The Vegetation of Long Island. Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Brooklyn.

Warner, John W. Jr., W.E. Hana, R.J. Landry, J.P. Wulforst, J.A. Neeley, R.L. Holmes, and C.E. Rice 1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York.U.S. Department of Agriculture,

47 Soil Conservation Services in Cooperation with Cornell Agricultural Experimental Station.

Maps Jensen, H.M. and J. Soren 1974 Hydrogeology of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C.

Stone, Gaynell not dated Map of Native Long Island. Long Island Culture History Lab & Museum - Suffolk County Archaeological Association, New York.

GLOSSARY

General Archaeological and Anthropological Terminology Band: The simplest form of human society. The basic social unit found in hunting-gathering societies. It is characterized by being based on kinship and egalitarianism.

Exogamy: A rule requiring marriage outside of one's own social/kinship group.

Extended Family: A family form that includes two or more related nuclear families.

Feature: Any soil disturbance or discoloration that reflects human activity or an artifact to large to be removed from a site (ex. hearth, cooking pit, storage pit, post holes, petroglyphs, house, etc.).

Diagnostic: Dateable. Artifacts with dateable attributes. In Situ: The original position of an artifact or feature encountered in undisturbed soils. Matrilineal: A form of descent whereby people trace their primary kin connections through their mothers.

Nuclear Family: The most basic family unit, composed of wife, husband and children.

Patrilocal residence: The practice of a newly married couple living with the husband's family.

Stratigraphy: Sequence of geological or culturally deposited layers, or strata.

Subsoil: Technically, the B horizon, roughly, the part of the solum below plow depth. Subsoil on Long Island tends to be a yellow brown sand with increasing amounts of gravel as is common on coastal plains.

Prehistoric Terminology Base Camp: A prehistoric dwelling site from hunter-gatherers from which resources procurement forays are made.

Biface: A lithic artifact exhibiting flake scars on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces.

Chopper: Large tools (hand axes) which are used in one or both hands. Retouch on the working edge of the tool is usually by percussion flaking techniques. These tools were probably used in the initial butchering of animals and smashing of large bones in marrow extraction.

Core: A piece of stone from which other pieces of stone are flaked off to make tools.

Debitage: Waste material from the manufacture of stone tools.

Flake: a form of stone debitage resulting from the manufacture of stone tools, or struck from a core for an expedient tool. Flakes are formed by either a controlled push and pressure or a striking percussion. They are distinguished by certain characteristics such as a striking platform and bulb of force.

FCR: Fire Cracked Rock, rock cracked by either intense direct heat or by adding cold water over hot rocks causing them to crack from the sudden change in temperature. FCR is usually either from hearth stone or used as cooking stones placed in pottery, gut bags, or wood baskets, etc. for the purpose of heating or boiling water.

Groundstone: a stone modified by grinding actions to the rock in order to process seeds, nuts, grain, etc. The grinding actions wear the stone down until the working side appears smoother than on other sides of the stone.

Hammerstone: A hand held stone used for hammering. Usually used in the making of other stone tools and referred to as hard hammer percussion (as opposed to soft hammer such as deer antlers). The hammering motion is vertical and the evidence is a pitted surface on the used section(s) of the stone.

Hearth Rock: Fire Cracked Rock. Rock used as part of a hearth. These rocks cracked as a result of direct fire and have exploded due to direct heat. The artifacts exhibit cracking, crazing and heat spalls. Some of these rocks may have been large in size before cracking.

Knife: One side of this cutting tool in straight, right up to the point, while the other side in angled.

Mano/Muller: A hand held stone used for the grinding (processing) of grain, plants, nuts, seeds, berries, etc. The mano/muller is of stone and usually used with a metate. The grinding motion is horizontal, producing a smoothed surface (with perhaps some shine) on the grinding surface.

Metate: A holding stone upon which plant food (plant, nuts, seeds, grain, berries, etc.) is ground upon (processed) with a mano/muller. Metates are of stone and the grinding motion is horizontal, producing a smoothed surface (and perhaps some shine) on the grinding section. Depressions are elongated and can be basin shaped if utilized heavily.

Nutting Stone: A mortar or vessel specifically used for holding nuts (as opposed to general mortar which is used for grain, plants, nuts, seeds, berries, etc.) while it is crushed (processed) by a pestle. Mortars can be of stone or wood. The motion of crushing is vertical, producing pitted depressions toward the center of the stone.

Paint Pot: Natural hematite which was used, and appears modified, by man for its paint (ocher).

Point: A thin, symmetrical tool form, usually bifacially flaked, having one end pointed and the other end modified for hafting. Regularities in design and style are usually recognized and associated with broad cultures and provide an important tool for chronological analysis. Points included spear points, arrow points, or knives. Pottery: For this report, the term pottery means prehistoric ceramic.

Preform: A biface intended to become a point.

Primary Flake: Flake having all (100%) of the cortex remaining on the dorsal surface.

Procurement Site: An area that is visited and utilized because there is a particular item there to acquire (ie. game, nuts, lithic outcrops, shellfish, etc.).

Secondary Flake: Flake having the dorsal surface partially covered by cortex (less than 100%). The dorsal surface exhibits flake scars from previous flake removal.

Scraper: A flake exhibiting flake scars on the dorsal surface along the entire lateral edge. These tools are useful for hide processing and butchering.

Shatter: Angular debris, most often the result of hard hammer percussion techniques applied to raw material containing fractures planes or flaws. Shatter exhibit no platform or termination.

Tested Cobble: This has only one flake removed from a piece of raw material for the purpose of visually inspecting the interior for the desired crypo- crystalline attributes.

Tertiary Flakes: Small pressure flake and thin, low intensity percussion flakes removed during the last stages of stone tool production. Small, thin flake with a well prepared platform and no remaining cortex.

Uniface: A piece of raw material whereby flakes are removed off one side with the cortex remaining on the other side. Used for initial hide processing, such as skinning and cutting and butchering activities.

Utilized Flake: These are unretouched artifacts which have macroscopic evidence of use. Indications of use are crushed edges or a row of minute flake scars. These tools were probably used for light cutting, trimming and incidental scraping. APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 TEST UNITS

TU LV NE SE NW SW CENT TEXTURE COLOR HOR 1 1 10-19 21-22 17-19 19-22 19-21 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 19-28 22-31 19-28 22-32 21-29 Loamy Sand 10YR3/2 A 2b 28-35 31-39 28-37 32-42 29-38 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 3 35-40 39-47 37-45 42-47 38-48 GrLoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B

2 2a 10-22 14-22 7-24 10-22 11-22 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 2b 22-30 22-34 24-30 22-32 22-32 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 3 30-38 34-38 30-39 32-37 32-41 GrLoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4 38-48 38-48 39-49 37-47 41-51 GrLoSa 10YR5/6 B

3 2a 1-12 3-15 1-13 8-18 4-14 Fine SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 12-22 15-25 13-23 18-28 14-24 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2c 22-31 25-32 23-31 28-36 24-31 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3 31-44 32-37 31-35 36-46 31-45 SaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B

4 2a 1-13 8-20 1-8 2-17 1-17 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 13-24 20-30 8-19 17-27 17-30 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2c 24-33 30-40 19-30 27-34 30-35 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3 33-39 40-45 30-40 34-44 35-42 SaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4 39-49 45-55 40-50 44-54 42-52 SaLo 10YR5/6 B

5 1 10-16 15-18 10-14 14-16 13-17 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 16-26 18-28 14-28 16-26 17-27 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 2b 26-40 28-38 28-38 26-37 27-39 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 3 40-47 38-45 38-44 37-45 39-45 GrLoSa 10YR3/3-5/6 A/B 4a 47-57 45-55 44-56 45-55 45-55 GrLoSa 10YR5/6 B 4b 57-67 55-65 56-66 55-65 55-65 GrLoSa 10YR5/6 B

6 1 7-13 12-19 9-18 14-21 11-16 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 13-23 19-29 18-28 21-31 16-27 Sandy Loam 10YR3/2 A 2b 23-35 29-35 28-35 31-38 27-37 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 3 35-41 35-44 35-41 38-43 37-43 GrLoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4 41-51 44-54 41-51 43-53 43-53 LoSa 10YR5/6 B

7 1 13-20 21-26 10-17 21-26 14-21 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 20-30 26-36 17-27 26-34 21-31 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 2b 30-39 36-46 27-38 34-42 31-42 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 3 39-50 46-54 38-51 42-55 42-51 LoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4a 50-63 54-64 51-62 55-67 51-63 GrSaLo 10YR5/6 B 4b 63-73 64-70 62-70 67-75 63-70 GrSaLo 10YR5/6 B

8 1 12-15 16-19 12-15 18-20 13-17 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 15-26 19-29 15-28 20-30 17-30 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 2b 26-35 29-37 28-33 30-37 30-37 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 3 35-46 37-46 33-48 37-51 37-49 GrLoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4 46-56 46-56 48-Ft 51-Ft 49-Ft GrLoSa 10YR5/6 B

9 1 17-23 27-34 10-17 20-27 19-24 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 23-33 34-39 17-32 27-37 24-34 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 2b 33-42 39-52 32-40 37-51 34-43 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 3 42-48 52-60 40-48 51-60 43-55 LoSa 10YR3/3-5/6 A/B 4 48-58 60-70 48-58 60-70 55-65 LoSa 10YR5/6 B

10 1 9-20 16-23 13-18 24-25 15-22 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 20-30 23-33 18-28 25-26 22-32 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 2b 30-39 33-37 28-34 26-40 32-40 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 3 39-43 37-43 34-44 40-49 40-45 GrLoSa 10YR3/3-5/6 A/B 4 43-53 43-53 44-54 49-59 45-55 LoSa 10YR5/6 B

11 2a 11-22 14-25 9-22 10-20 10-22 SaLo,roots 10YR3/2 A 2b 22-32 25-37 22-31 20-34 22-32 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2c 32-41 37-40 31-40 34-41 32-40 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3 41-52 40-56 40-48 41-52 40-50 GrLoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B

12 2a 19-31 36-46 18-28 36-46 30-40 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 2b 31-41 46-56 28-40 46-56 40-50 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 2c 41-50 56-56 40-52 56-56 50-53 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 3 50-57 56-56 52-58 56-60 53-61 GrLoSa 10YR3/3-5/4 A

13 2a 17-27 35-45 20-30 32-44 20-35 GrLoSa 10YR3/2 A 2b 27-41 45-55 30-41 44-54 35-46 GrLoSa 10YR3/2 A 2c 41-53 55-58 41-52 54-58 46-55 GrLoSa 10YR3/2 A 3 53-56 58-61 52-57 58-61 55-60 GrLoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B

14 1 11-25 21-27 13-24 24-28 15-26 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 25-35 27-37 24-36 28-38 26-36 FiSaLo 10YR3/3 A 2b 35-40 37-47 36-48 38-49 36-45 SaLo 10YR3/3 A 3 40-48 47-54 48-54 49-59 45-55 SaLo 10YR3/3-5/6 A/B 4 48-58 54-64 54-64 59-70 55-66 SaLo 10YR5/6 B

15 1 10-14 15-19 12-18 18-20 15-20 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 14-26 19-30 18-29 20-30 20-30 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 2b 26-33 30-35 29-35 30-38 30-36 LoSa 10YR3/3 A 3 33-38 35-53 35-43 38-50 36-49 GrLoSa 10YR3/3-5/4 A/B 4 38-48 53-63 43-53 50-60 49-59 GrLoSa 10YR5/4 B

16 1 8-15 17-20 10-17 16-19 11-17 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 15-25 20-29 17-30 19-29 17-29 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 25-36 29-36 30-39 29-37 29-37 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 4a 36-44 36-46 39-42 37-42 37-43 SaLo 10YR5/6 B 4b 44-54 46-56 42-52 42-52 43-53 SaLo 10YR5/6 B

17 1 10-14 14-19 7-16 9-17 10-16 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 14-28 19-30 16-27 17-29 16-28 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 2b 28-35 30-34 27-36 29-38 28-34 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 3 35-41 34-42 36-41 38-50 34-43 LoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4 41-51 42-52 41-51 50-60 43-53 LoSa 10YR5/6 B

18 2a 14-23 14-23 13-21 10-22 17-23 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 2b 23-33 23-33 21-33 22-32 23-31 LoSa 10YR3/2 A 3 33-42 33-47 33-42 32-44 31-42 GrLoSa 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4 42-53 47-57 42-55 44-54 42-54 GrLoSa 10YR5/6 B

19 1 10-15 9-14 11-13 9-16 11-16 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 15-25 14-24 13-23 16-26 16-26 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 25-30 24-27 23-28 26-30 26-30 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3 30-40 27-40 28-40 30-42 30-42 GrSaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B

20 1 12-16 14-15 11-13 14-16 16-16 RootMt/humus A/O 2a 16-26 15-25 13-23 16-26 16-24 SaLo 10YR3/3 A 2b 26-36 25-37 23-34 26-38 24-36 SaLo 10YR3/3 A 3 36-45 37-50 34-42 38-46 36-46 SaLo 10YR3/3-5/6 A/B 4 45-55 50-60 42-53 46-56 46-56 SaLo 10YR5/6 B

21 1 6-8 8-10 8-10 9-11 7-11 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 8-21 10-23 10-21 11-23 11-25 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 21-32 23-35 21-33 23-34 25-34 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3 32-42 35-48 33-42 34-47 34-46 GrSaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4a 42-54 48-58 42-54 47-63 46-60 GrSaLo 10YR5/6 B 4b 54-64 58-68 54-64 63-73 46-56 GrSaLo 10YR5/6 B

22 1 7-8 9-9 3-5 9-10 5-6 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 8-19 9-23 5-19 10-20 6-18 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 19-29 23-33 19-27 20-30 18-32 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3 29-36 33-43 27-38 30-43 32-36 SaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4 36-46 43-53 38-48 43-53 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B

23 1 6-13 4-10 8-13 6-12 8-11 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 13-23 10-21 13-23 12-23 11-22 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 23-28 21-25 23-29 23-30 22-26 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3a 28-34 25-37 29-39 30-39 26-38 SaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 3b FT12 37-40 39-42 39-45 38-44 SaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B

24 1 5-12 3-10 10-14 7-12 6-11 RootMat/humus A/O 2a 12-22 10-20 14-24 12-22 11-21 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 22-26 20-28 24-30 22-30 21-29 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3 26-32 28-36 30-33 30-36 29-36 SaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 4a 32-46 36-46 33-Ft 36-46 36-46 SaLo 10YR5/6 B 4b 46-56 46-56 46-56 46-56 SaLo 10YR5/6 B

25 1 10-22 10-18 13-22 15-20 15-22 RootMat/overburden A/O 5 22-25 18-24 22-26 20-30 22-27 Coarse GrSa 10YR5/4 overburden 2a 25-35 24-38 26-37 30-40 27-38 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 2b 35-49 38-52 37-47 40-50 38-50 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3a 49-59 52-62 47-60 50-63 50-61 SaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B 3b 59-73 62-77 60-Ft 63-77 61-72 GrSaLo 10YR3/2-5/6 A/B

26 1 13-20 15-21 14-23 13-23 13-21 RootMat/overburden A/O 5 20-31 21-31 23-33 23-33 21-31 Coarse GrSa 10YR5/4 overburden 2 31-39 31-47 33-38 33-40 31-42 SaLo 10YR3/3 A 3 39-44 47-49 38-44 40-50 42-50 SaLo 10YR3/3 A

27 1 10-24 14-23 10-23 16-24 9-24 RootMat/overburden A/O 5 24-29 23-32 23-33 24-35 24-33 Coarse GrSa 10YR5/4 overburden 2 29-39 32-38 33-40 35-40 33-41 SaLo 10YR3/2 A 3 39-50 38-52 40-45 40-43 41-48 SaLo 10YR3/3-5/6 A/B overlies FT 12

28 1 24-30 20-36 17-34 22-39 21-36 RootMat/humus A/O 2 30-42 36-43 34-52 39-52 36-48 SaLo 10YR3/3 A overlies FT 13 APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 4 APPENDIX 5 NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION & HISTORIC PRESERVATION (518) 237-8643

For Office Use Only--Site Identifier

Project Identifier Payne3 Date 11/13/08

Your Name Alfred Cammisa Phone ( 845) 783-4082 Address 62 Pickerel Rd. Monroe, NY Organization (if any) TRACKER-Archaeology Services 1. SITE IDENTIFIER(S) Payne Site 2. COUNTY Suffolk One of the following: CITY TOWNSHIP East Hampton INCORPORATED VILLAGE UNINCORPORATED VILLAGE OR HAMLET

3. PRESENT OWNER Tim Hogan Address 94 Jewel St, Ground fl, Brooklyn, NY

4. SITE DESCRIPTION (check all appropriate categories): Site Stray Find Cave/Rockshelter x Workshop Pictograph Quarry Mound Burial x Shell Midden ? Village Surface Evidence x Camp Material in plow zone Material below plow zone x Buried evidence Intact Occupation floor Single component x Evidence of features Stratified x Multicomponent Location Under cultivation Never cultivated Previously cultivated Pastureland x Woodland Floodplain Upland Sustaining erosion

Soil Drainage: excellent x good fair poor Slope: flat gentle moderate x steep Distance to nearest water from site (approx.) 40ft Elevation: 10ft amsl

5. SITE INVESTIGATION (append additional sheets, if necessary): Surface--date(s) Nov.- Dec., 2007 Site map (Submit with form) Collection Subsurface--date(s) 11-12-2007 Testing: shovel coring other unit size no. of units (Submit plan of units with form) Excavation: unit size 1 m no. of units 28

Investigator Alfred Cammisa

Manuscript or published report(s) (reference fully): Ten Thousand Years of Land Use at Fort Pond: A Portage Haven Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the Payne Site Montauk, Township of East Hampton Suffolk County, New York

Present repository of materials TRACKER

6. COMPONENT(S) (cultural affiliation/dates):

Paleoindian-like unfluted point, Neville Stemmed point, Late Archaic/Transitional points & FT, Early Woodland points, pottery, & FT’s, Middle Woodland points, pottery, & FT’s, Middle-Late Woodland points & pottery, pipe bowl with checkerboard design (Abbott Zone Incised),

7. LIST OF MATERIAL REMAINS (be specific as possible in identifying object and material): points, bifaces, unifaces, scraper, utilized flake, pottery, hammerstone, groundstone, nutting stone, netsinkers, preform, burins, paint pot, knives, choppers, drills mostly quartz & quartzite, but some chert, jasper, sandstone, granite, conglomerate, hemetite

If historic materials are evident, check here and fill out historic site form

8. MAP REFERENCES

USGS 7.5 Minute Series Quad. Name Montauk Point, NY

UTM Coordinates

9. Photography APPENDIX 6 APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX 8 APPENDIX 9

Figure 1 N

Portion of the Montuak Point, NY U.S.G.S.

1”=1000’

PAYNE SITE Figure 3 N Portion of the County Soil Survey

PAYNE SITE Figure 4 Sub-surface contours of Fort Pond

PAYNE SITE

Rockhill Site

DeSousa Site

FT 3- HEARTH

FT 2-MIDDEN

FT 1- HEARTHS

Photo 2

Features 1, 2, and 3 - Hearth(s), Midden, & Hearth FT 5- HEARTH

FT 4- EXCAVATED PIT

Photo 3

Features 4 and 5 - Hearth & Pit FT 11- HEARTH

FT 7- PIT

FT 8- MIDDEN FT 6-HEARTH

FT 9- PIT/STAIN

o 4: FT’s 6, 7, 8, 9, & 11 - 2 Hearths, 2 Pits, & 1 Midden PLAN VIEW

PROFILE VIEW

DEPTH

PLAN VIEW

DEPTH

PROFILE VIEW

Photo 8

Feature 13- Oven plan & profile shot

Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 1

CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 245 1 1 78 clear glass 1.00 72 1 2a modern beer bottle frag 1.00 73 1 2a iron frags 4.00 165 1 2b 10 9 39 FCR 113.00 4.00 166 1 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 65.90 4.00 167 1 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 8.00 1.00 168 1 2b 10 3 53 33 shatter 34.50 3.00 169 1 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 15.90 9.00 1015 1 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 1048 1 3 10 2 83 13 North Beach? Pottery 1.00 EW? 253 1 3 10 9 53 FCR 3,300.00 103.00 254 1 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 378.90 14.00 255 1 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 118.00 28.00 471 1 SW 3 10 9 54 FCR 16.60 1.00 518 10 1 glass, 1 aqua, 2 green bottle 3.00 742 10 1 clear whiskey bottle(modern) 14.00 743 10 1 green whiskey bottle 1.00 744 10 1 wood fragment 1.00 378 10 2a liquor bottle top 1.00 379 10 2a aqua glass 1.00 513 10 2b 10 9 39 FCR 113.00 2.00 514 10 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary, norm 1.20 1.00 515 10 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 26.90 2.00 516 10 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 71.30 1.00 517 10 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 6.60 10.00 1023 10 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 2.00 M-LW 367 10 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtzite 624.00 8.00 368 10 3 10 3 54 27 primary 135.40 3.00 369 10 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 46.60 11.00 370 10 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, fine grainedmotttled 15.90 1.00 371 10 3 10 3 53 33 shatter 142.20 2.00 730 10 3 10 9 42 FCR sandstone/granite 1,814.36 2.00 731 10 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 2.00 4.00 732 10 3 10 7 53 81 Biface 22.00 1.00 733 10 3 10 3 53 27 primary 19.40 1.00 734 10 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 2.60 1.00 774 10 3 10 9 42 FCR 283.49 8.00 775 10 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 34.20 20.00 776 10 3 10 3 53 27 primary 95.90 2.00 777 10 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 31.10 1.00 778 10 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 24.70 1.00 741 11 NW 2a plastic 2.00 988 11 NW 2a 2 3 89 clam shell 1.00 1011 11 SE 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 1.00 M-LW Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 2 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 490 11 SE 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 12.70 3.00 491 11 SE 2b 10 7 53 67 Knife, yellbr 63.90 1.00 519 11 SW 2b 10 3 53 FCR, pink 2.40 1.00 520 11 SW 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary, wh&smokey 96.70 4.00 521 11 SW 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary, br 14.10 1.00 522 11 SW 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 0.80 2.00 523 11 NE 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite 170.00 5.00 524 11 NE 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 28.10 4.00 525 11 NE 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary, heat treat fine gr 3.60 1.00 526 11 NE 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 72.10 4.00 527 11 NE 2b 10 3 54 30 Core/primary, br fg 138.50 1.00 528 11 NE 2b 10 7 53 81 Biface 92.70 1.00 556 11 2b 10 9 42 FCR 402.00 4.00 557 11 2b 10 3 42 21 Hammerstone 114.70 1.00 558 11 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 3.40 2.00 961 11 NE 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor, poss. Brushed Pottery 2.00 M-LW? 983 11 NE 2b 2 89 shell 3.00 984 11 NE 2b glass 2.00 1041 11 SW 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed? 1.00 M-LW? 529 11 SW 2c 10 3 54 21 Hammerstone 113.40 1.00 530 11 SW 2c 10 9 43 FCR 23.10 2.00 531 11 SW 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 10.80 10.00 532 11 SW 2c 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 0.50 1.00 533 11 SW 2c 10 1 52 1 Jack Reef Pt, norm reworked into Knife 3.10 1.00 MW 534 11 SE 2c 10 9 39 FCR 283.00 6.00 535 11 SE 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary, 2 smokey 19.90 13.00 536 11 SE 2c 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 1.70 1.00 537 11 SE 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 35.80 2.00 538 11 SE 2c 10 1 53 1 Levanna Pt 1.10 1.00 M-LW 539 11 NW 2c 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite 100.70 3.00 540 11 NW 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 5.20 3.00 541 11 NW 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 85.60 1.00 726 11 NW 2c 10 9 53 FCR 33.90 1.00 727 11 NW 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 16.70 9.00 728 11 NW 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 13.10 1.00 729 11 NW 2c 10 3 52 29 tertiary 7.40 2.00 949 11 NW 2c 10 2 83 13 Pottery 8.00 W 950 11 NW 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 951 11 NW 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 2.00 M-LW 952 11 NW 2c 10 2 83 13 cordmark Pottery 1.00 W 1000 11 NE 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 1019 11 SW 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 1.00 M-LW 130 11 NE 3 10 9 53 FCR 28.00 1.00 131 11 NE 3 10 3 53 29 large tertiary 190.10 2.00 132 11 NW 3 10 9 42 FCR, granite/gneiss 46.10 3.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 3 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 133 11 NW 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 13.50 6.00 134 11 NW 3 10 3 53 33 shatter 25.00 3.00 135 11 NW 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 41.50 7.00 136 11 3 10 9 39 FCR 850.00 3.00 137 11 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 54.30 17.00 138 11 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, grey 2.70 1.00 139 11 NE 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/cong. 113.00 5.00 140 11 NE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 12.70 11.00 141 11 NE 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 36.10 4.00 15 11 NE 3 10 9 39 FCR (ss&granite) 230.00 3.00 16 11 NE 3 10 3 53 27 primary 208.50 6.00 17 11 NE 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 45.70 2.00 18 11 NE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 67.20 2.00 822 11 SE 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 8.00 W 823 11 SE 3 10 2 83 13 pos Windsor Pottery 3.00 W 824 11 SE 3 10 2 83 13 cordmarked Pottery 1.00 W 825 11 SE 3 10 2 80 13 Windsor, poss Sebonac,shell,gray 7.00 LW? 826 11 SE 3 10 2 83 13 poss Sebonac Pottery 2.00 LW 856 11 3 2 3 89 clam shell 27.00 863 11 3 2 3 89 clam shell 16.00 865 11 NE 3 2 3 89 clam shell 10.00 906 11 NE 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor cord/fabric marked 1.00 W 907 11 NW 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 3.00 W 908 11 NW 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 1.00 M-LW 909 11 NW 3 10 2 83 13 Sebonac?stamped...curveylines..no int brush 1.00 LW? 972 11 SW 3 2 3 89 clam shell 5.00 999 11 NE 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 2.00 M-LW 917 12 2a 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery, poss,Brushed 2.00 M-LW? 94 12 2a 10 9 39 FCR 115.00 5.00 95 12 2a 10 3 53 32 tested cobble/FCR 172.00 1.00 96 12 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 19.70 7.00 1032 12 NE 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 4.00 W 1033 12 NE 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 104 12 SW 2b 10 9 39 FCR 805.00 13.00 1046 12 NW 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery, neck? 1.00 W 105 12 SW 2b 10 7 53 81 Biface tip, pink 2.70 1.00 106 12 SW 2b 10 7 51 71 endScraper, heat treated br 1.30 1.00 107 12 SW 2b 10 1 53 1 Point tip 0.40 1.00 108 12 SW 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 61.10 5.00 109 12 SW 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 42.00 22.00 110 12 SW 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl chert 0.10 2.00 224 12 NW 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/schist 65.70 10.00 225 12 NW 2b 10 3 54 29 tertiary,wh 14.90 4.00 226 12 SE 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/cong/qtzite 907.00 20.00 227 12 SE 2b 10 54 possible Burins 2.10 2.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 4 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 228 12 SE 2b 10 1 53 1 Point base,wh 5.60 1.00 229 12 SE 2b 10 3 53 27 primary, yellow 2.70 1.00 230 12 SE 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 32.30 3.00 231 12 SE 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary, yellow&wh 53.50 17.00 460 12 NE 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/schist/qtz 907.00 16.00 461 12 NE 2b 10 1 42 6 Netsinker?, granite/schist 182.00 1.00 462 12 NE 2b 10 7 53 67 Knife, fire grain 57.30 1.00 463 12 NE 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary, grey/bl 1.50 2.00 464 12 NE 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 33.60 19.00 465 12 NE 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 81.20 9.00 466 12 NE 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 7.20 2.00 914 12 SW 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 9.00 W 924 12 NW 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 941 12 SW 2b 2 3 89 clam shell 10.00 996 12 NE 2b 2 3 89 clam shell 2.00 447 12 NW 2c 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz 454.00 27.00 448 12 NW 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 17.30 13.00 449 12 NW 2c 10 3 53 27 primary, fire grain 14.60 1.00 450 12 NW 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 21.40 1.00 53 12 NE 2c 10 9 53 FCR (quartz/ss) 575.00 19.00 54 12 NE 2c 10 7 54 81 Biface (smokey) 13.50 1.00 55 12 NE 2c 10 3 52 29 tertiary, greybrown chert 1.00 1.00 56 12 NE 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 31.80 4.00 57 12 NE 2c 10 3 53 33 angular debris/shatter 43.80 3.00 58 12 NE 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 26.90 26.00 870 12 NE 2c 2 3 89 clam shell 5.00 892 12 NW 2c 10 2 83 13 Pottery 4.00 W 893 12 NW 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 2.00 W 901 12 2c 10 2 83 13 Pottery 2.00 W 943 12 NE 2c 10 2 83 13 cordmarked Pottery 10.00 W 944 12 NE 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 15.00 W 945 12 NE 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 3.00 M-LW 946 12 NE 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 2.00 W 947 12 NW 2c 2 3 89 clam shell 19.00 997 12 NE 2c 2 3 89 clam shell 3.00 1028 12 SE 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 1029 12 SE 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 129 12 3 10 1 53 1 Brewerton eared triangle Pt 5.60 1.00 LA 178 12 NE 3 10 3 53 33 shatter 64.10 1.00 179 12 NE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 1.40 1.00 410 12 NE 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss.qtz 454.00 14.00 411 12 NE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, smokey 8.60 7.00 412 12 NE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, pink 35.90 12.00 413 12 NE 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 87.00 7.00 414 12 NE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 39.00 7.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 5 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 415 12 NE 3 10 3 53 27 primary 15.00 1.00 416 12 NE 3 10 3 53 30 Core/shatter 63.90 1.00 642 12 SE 3 10 9 39 FCR sandstone/granite/quartz 5,273.01 47.00 643 12 SE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 47.50 22.00 644 12 SE 3 10 3 53 33 blocky 25.90 3.00 645 12 SE 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary 2.30 1.00 646 12 SE 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 53.90 3.00 647 12 SE 3 10 6 53 52 Drill bit 1.40 1.00 648 12 SE 3 10 7 54 81 Biface/Projectile pt. 6.60 1.00 781 12 SE 3 2 1 17 whitetail- 1 vert,11 longbone 12.00 782 12 SE 3 2 1 17 med terr.mam.-1vert,1longbone 2.00 783 12 SE 3 2 1 17 unident mammal,longbone 1.00 784 12 SE 3 2 2 17 med bird,long bone 1.00 871 12 SE 3 2 3 89 clam shell 4.00 935 12 NE 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor cordmark 6.00 W 936 12 NE 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 18.00 W 937 12 NE 3 10 3 83 13 cordmarked Pottery 8.00 W 977 12 3 2 3 89 clam shell 4.00 120 13 NW 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 7.90 4.00 973 13 2a 2 3 89 clam shell 10.00 100 13 SW 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 3.70 5.00 101 13 SW 2b 10 3 53 30 Core, finegrained redbrown 57.10 1.00 1050 13 SE 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 8.80 8.00 1051 13 SE 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary, blackish-br 18.70 3.00 1052 13 SE 2b 10 3 53 33 shatter 22.40 2.00 1053 13 SE 2b 10 9 53 FCR 46.20 1.00 119 13 NW 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 0.10 1.00 77 13 NE 2b 10 9 42 FCR 253.00 2.00 78 13 NE 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 8.00 3.00 904 13 SE 2b 2 3 89 clam shell 5.00 916 13 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery, cordmarked, burnt 1.00 W 926 13 SW 2b 10 2 83 13 1 Windsor Cordmark, 1 cordmark 2.00 LW 998 13 SW 2b 2 3 89 clam shell 3.00 10 13 SW 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 8.10 12.00 11 13 SW 2c 10 7 53 81 Biface 9.10 1.00 111 13 SE 2c 10 9 39 FCR 460.00 3.00 112 13 SE 2c 10 3 53 27 primary 18.90 2.00 113 13 SE 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 26.60 6.00 114 13 SE 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 15.50 18.00 145 13 NW 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 18.30 6.00 146 13 NW 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 12.60 1.00 242 13 NE 2c 10 9 39 FCR 113.00 3.00 59 13 NE 2c 10 9 53 FCR 115.00 3.00 60 13 NE 2c 10 3 52 29 tertiary, greyblack chert 3.00 2.00 61 13 NE 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 14.90 20.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 6 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 62 13 NE 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 3.90 2.00 8 13 SW 2c 10 9 39 FCR (sandstone&gneiss) 460.00 5.00 857 13 SW 2c 2 3 89 clam shell 16.00 858 13 SW 2c 2 2 89 scallop shell 2.00 866 13 SE 2c 2 3 89 clam shell 12.00 867 13 SE 2c 2 1 89 oyster shell 1.00 9 13 SW 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 18.80 3.00 963 13 NE 2c 2 89 shell 6.00 1040 13 SW 3 10 8 83 85 Pipe bowl frag., incised 1.00 LW? 142 13 NW 3 10 9 39 FCR 227.00 2.00 143 13 NW 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, green 0.30 1.00 144 13 NW 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 25.60 17.00 47 13 NE 3 10 9 39 FCR 290.00 8.00 48 13 NE 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, redbrown chert 0.70 1.00 49 13 NE 3 10 3 53 27 primary (white&rose) 4.90 3.00 50 13 NE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 14.40 20.00 51 13 NE 3 10 3 53 33 angular debris/shatter 14.70 3.00 52 13 NE 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 9.00 3.00 780 13 NW 3 2 1 17 deer long bones 2.00 827 13 NW 3 2 3 89 clam shell, inc. quahog 35.00 828 13 NW 3 2 2 89 scallop shell 8.00 919 13 NW 3 10 2 80 13 Pottery, shell 3.00 W 707 14 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary clear qtz 0.29 1.00 128 14 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 8.00 9.00 431 14 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz 567.00 21.00 432 14 2b 10 1 53 1 Levanna-like Pt 2.30 1.00 M-LW 433 14 2b 10 1 54 6 possible Netsinker, fine grain 340.00 1.00 434 14 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 29.90 23.00 435 14 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 20.80 7.00 436 14 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary, fire grain 8.80 3.00 437 14 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 1.60 1.00 438 14 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 120.90 2.00 439 14 2b 10 7 53 75 Utilized Flake, heat treated 28.30 1.00 829 14 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 10.00 W 830 14 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Cordmarked Pottery 1.00 LW 831 14 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 832 14 2b 10 2 83 13 cord marked Pottery 1.00 W 160 14 3 10 9 39 FCR 454.00 12.00 161 14 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 10.60 1.00 162 14 3 10 7 53 81 possible Biface 54.00 1.00 163 14 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 17.90 3.00 205 14 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss, qtzite,granite 794.00 14.00 206 14 3 10 1 54 1 Neville Stemmed Pt, red 8.00 1.00 MA 207 14 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 44.90 2.00 208 14 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 9.30 4.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 7 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 209 14 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, smokey 2.60 1.00 978 14 3 2 89 shell 2.00 472 15 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 1.60 3.00 764 15 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 18.40 19.00 765 15 2b 10 9 42 FCR 566.99 6.00 766 15 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 108.70 3.00 767 15 2b 10 3 53 33 blocky 55.80 2.00 768 15 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 18.90 1.00 43 15 3 10 9 39 FCR (ss,quartz,qrtzite) 750.00 9.00 44 15 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 100.10 9.00 45 15 3 10 3 53 27 primary 44.40 4.00 46 15 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 161.00 85.00 633 15 3 10 9 53 FCR 907.18 9.00 634 15 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 23.40 2.00 635 15 3 10 3 53 27 primary 212.00 2.00 859 15 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 10.00 W 860 15 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 2.00 W 31 16 1 10 9 53 FCR 104.80 2.00 915 16 1 10 2 80 13 Pottery, rim, shell 1.00 W 97 16 2a 10 9 53 FCR 12.50 1.00 98 16 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 0.50 3.00 99 16 2a window glass 1.00 1031 16 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 2.00 W 185 16 2b 10 9 53 FCR, qtz/ss/gneiss 680.00 10.00 186 16 2b 10 3 53 21 Hammerstone 187.30 1.00 187 16 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 38.10 2.00 188 16 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 91.00 24.00 189 16 2b 10 3 53 33 shatter 53.70 12.00 258 16 2b 10 9 53 FCR 1,420.00 74.00 259 16 2b 10 3 42 21 Hammerstone, granite/schist 1.80 1.00 260 16 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary,bl 0.30 1.00 261 16 2b 10 3 54 28 secondary 55.50 3.00 262 16 2b 10 7 54 81 marginal Biface, br 46.00 1.00 263 16 2b 10 7 53 71 possible Scraper 2.40 1.00 264 16 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 69.70 30.00 265 16 2b 10 1 53 1 Point base 3.00 1.00 886 16 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 7.00 W 887 16 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 7.00 W 888 16 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed 4.00 M-LW 889 16 2b 10 2 83 13 faint Matineccock? Stamped 1.00 E-MW? 890 16 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Cordmarked? 2.00 LW? 971 16 2b 2 89 shell 6.00 618 16 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite/qtz 3,175.00 31.00 619 16 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 338.30 16.00 620 16 3 10 3 53 27 primary 161.60 4.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 8 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 621 16 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 73.20 26.00 622 16 3 10 3 53 33 shatter 111.20 2.00 623 16 3 10 7 53 81 marginal Bifaces, pink/wh 143.70 2.00 223 17 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 1.60 3.00 542 17 2b 10 2 42 17 large Mano/Hammerstone 680.00 1.00 569 17 2b 10 9 54 FCR quartzite/granite 340.19 6.00 570 17 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 40.70 28.00 571 17 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary brown quartz 137.90 13.00 572 17 2b 10 3 53 30 Core frag. pink quartz 105.30 3.00 573 17 2b 10 7 53 67 flake/Knife 77.00 1.00 574 17 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary 0.70 1.00 575 17 2b 10 1 52 1 Projectile pt. base 0.90 1.00 786 17 2b 2 1 17 med terr. mammal 1.00 1008 17 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 3.00 W 1009 17 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Cordmark Pottery 1.00 LW 1010 17 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 549 17 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 56.90 14.00 550 17 3 10 9 42 FCR 680.34 7.00 551 17 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 221.40 16.00 552 17 3 10 3 53 27 primary 190.00 6.00 553 17 3 10 3 53 30 Core 71.10 2.00 554 17 3 10 3 53 30 Core, brown quartz 103.90 1.00 555 17 3 10 6 53 52 Drill/Perforator 2.50 1.00 986 17 3 2 3 89 clam shell 5.00 1024 17 3b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 4.00 M-LW 1025 17 3b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 2.00 W 1026 17 3b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 25 18 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 29.70 3.00 26 18 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 5.10 6.00 27 18 2b 10 9 53 FCR 290.00 4.00 293 18 3 10 9 39 FCR, s/granite 2,211.00 24.00 294 18 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 109.50 40.00 295 18 3 10 3 53 30 Core 47.70 1.00 296 18 3 10 3 54 28 secondary, wh/pink 125.80 13.00 297 18 3 10 3 54 27 primary, wh/pink 151.40 5.00 298 18 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 0.80 1.00 299 18 3 10 1 53 1 Point frag 2.00 1.00 840 18 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor, poss Windsor Brushed Pottery 4.00 M-LW 372 19 1 beer bottle 1.00 373 19 1 clear bottle 1.00 374 19 1 plastic 1.00 375 19 1 10 9 53 FCR 170.00 2.00 376 19 1 10 3 53 27 primary 318.00 2.00 377 19 1 10 3 53 29 tertiary 29.70 13.00 962 19 2 modern bottle glass (7up?) 2.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 9 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 307 19 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite/gneiss 567.00 10.00 308 19 3 10 3 53 28 secondary, br, gray 141.90 4.00 309 19 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, gray 35.60 7.00 359 19 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz/granite 2,608.00 42.00 360 19 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, graybl 1.40 1.00 361 19 3 10 7 52 88 Orient Fishtail Preform, norm 17.40 1.00 LA-EW 362 19 3 10 7 53 75 Utilized Flake, heat treated 33.80 1.00 363 19 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 283.90 16.00 364 19 3 10 3 53 27 primary 150.40 2.00 365 19 3 10 3 53 27 primary 282.30 1.00 366 19 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 128.20 17.00 958 19 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Cordmarked Pottery 1.00 LW 959 19 3 10 2 83 13 1 poss. CleaviewStamp,1 uneven scallop stamp 2.00 MW 706 2 2a windshield wiper 1.00 219 2 2b 10 9 54 FCR, qtzite/schist 3,005.00 12.00 220 2 2b 54 raw quartzite material 110.10 1.00 221 2 2b 10 3 54 27 primary 39.40 2.00 222 2 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 15.60 11.00 243 2 3 10 9 39 FCR 11.70 1.00 244 2 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 2.90 1.00 277 2 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite 2,551.00 32.00 278 2 3 10 9 53 FCR 342.90 1.00 279 2 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, wh/smokey/pink 95.10 41.00 280 2 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 241.10 15.00 281 2 3 10 3 53 29 large tertiary 128.30 8.00 282 2 3 10 3 53 28 large secondary 102.60 2.00 283 2 3 10 3 53 27 primary 107.90 1.00 284 2 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary 0.20 1.00 285 2 3 10 1 53 1 Point fragment 6.30 1.00 286 2 3 10 7 53 81 Biface/Pt base 3.00 1.00 287 2 3 10 7 53 81 Biface frags 6.80 2.00 440 2 3 10 9 53 FCR, ss/qtz 510.00 21.00 735 2 3 10 9 53 FCR 9.70 3.00 736 2 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 4.60 7.00 737 2 3 10 3 53 28 secondary/blocky 29.90 1.00 897 2 3 10 2 83 13 Clearview Stamped Pottery 2.00 MW 898 2 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 6.00 W 899 2 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 900 2 3 10 2 83 13 brushint,incisedext.,1rim, poss NoBeachIncisd 2.00 EW? 750 20 1 amber glass 1.00 751 20 1 10 3 51 29 tertiary 0.20 1.00 752 20 1 10 3 52 29 tertiary 0.70 1.00 608 20 2a iron unident 5.00 609 20 2a wire tangle 1.00 610 20 2a whiskey bottle cap 1.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 10 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 611 20 2a whiskey pint bottle 1.00 612 20 2a green bottle frags 8.00 613 20 2a amber bottle frags 2.00 121 20 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/quartz 624.00 8.00 122 20 2b 10 1 42 6 Net sinker, granite/gneiss 283.00 1.00 123 20 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary 1.80 4.00 124 20 2b 10 3 53 33 shatter 94.00 3.00 125 20 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 13.90 2.00 126 20 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 8.60 1.00 127 20 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 15.50 16.00 894 20 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 3.00 W 895 20 2b 10 2 83 13 cordmarked Pottery 1.00 W 896 20 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 2.00 W 1001 20 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 5.00 W 1002 20 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 1.00 M-LW 1003 20 3 10 2 83 13 scallop shell stamping Pottery 1.00 W 383 20 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz 2,665.00 39.00 384 20 3 10 3 51 29 tertiary, red 1.10 1.00 385 20 3 10 3 53 28 secondary, w/y 199.60 13.00 386 20 3 10 3 53 27 primary, w/y 223.90 2.00 387 20 3 10 3 53 27 primary 75.50 6.00 388 20 3 10 3 53 30 Core 179.80 1.00 389 20 3 10 3 53 28 secondary, gray 34.50 2.00 390 20 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, 1 yellow 144.00 44.00 1 21 2 10 1 54 1 Levanna Pt 9.50 1.00 M-LW 499 21 2 10 3 53 29 tertiary 1.00 2.00 716 21 2b 10 3 53 21 Hammerstone, heat affected 510.00 1.00 717 21 2b 10 9 53 FCR 58.00 4.00 718 21 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 27.30 14.00 719 21 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 43.20 3.00 720 21 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary, clear qtz 0.40 1.00 721 21 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 0.20 1.00 722 21 2b 10 1 53 1 Point tips 1.10 2.00 723 21 2b 10 7 53 81 large triangulr Biface/preform 41.50 1.00 724 21 2b 10 7 53 81 Biface frags 41.50 2.00 725 21 2b 10 1 52 1 Levanna Pt, grey mottled 6.50 1.00 M-LA 923 21 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery, 1 Windsor Brushed, 2 unident 3.00 M-LW 1013 21 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 2.00 W 1042 21 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed 1.00 M-LW 451 21 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz/schist 1,021.00 14.00 452 21 3 10 3 39 21 possible Hammerstone, ss/schist 340.00 1.00 453 21 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 88.80 24.00 454 21 3 10 3 53 27 primary 212.10 11.00 455 21 3 10 3 53 29 secondary/shatter 135.70 8.00 456 21 3 10 3 53 30 Core/tested cobble 250.10 1.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 11 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 457 21 3 10 3 53 28 secondary, smokey 32.40 1.00 458 21 3 10 3 53 30 Core? 397.00 1.00 459 21 3 10 7 53 81 Bifaces, 1 white/1 smokey 16.60 2.00 591 21 3 10 9 42 FCR granite/schist/quartz 3,628.73 40.00 592 21 3 10 9 53 FCR 453.59 2.00 593 21 3 10 7 53 74 Chopper 453.59 1.00 594 21 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 30.60 16.00 595 21 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 74.70 5.00 596 21 3 10 3 53 27 primary 101.40 1.00 597 21 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary 0.60 1.00 838 21 3 10 2 83 13 cordmarked Pottery 1.00 W 839 21 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 2.00 W 942 21 3 2 3 89 clam shell 14.00 337 21 4a 10 3 53 27 primary, yellow 238.40 1.00 338 21 4a 10 3 53 28 secondary 162.40 1.00 339 21 4a 10 3 53 28 secondary, mottled gray&red 79.50 1.00 340 21 4a 10 3 53 21 Hammerstone 74.20 1.00 341 21 4a 10 3 53 27 primary 33.00 1.00 342 21 4a 10 3 53 28 secondary 72.60 6.00 343 21 4a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 55.80 19.00 987 22 2a styrofoam 3.00 90 22 2b 10 9 39 FCR 170.00 2.00 91 22 2b 10 1 54 1 Levanna Pt 2.50 1.00 M-LW 92 22 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 77.40 5.00 93 22 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 40.30 19.00 964 22 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 4.00 W 965 22 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor, poss. Brushed 2.00 M-LW? 966 22 2b 10 2 83 13 scallopstamp on rim, poss. Niantic Stamp 1.00 LW? 1004 22 2c 10 8 96 Paint Pot 1.00 344 22 2c 10 9 53 FCR, qt/ss/cong 510.00 11.00 345 22 2c 10 2 54 16 Muller/Mano 850.00 1.00 346 22 2c 10 3 53 27 primary 156.40 4.00 347 22 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 281.80 16.00 348 22 2c 10 3 53 27 primary 12.50 5.00 349 22 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary, 1 pink 58.50 30.00 882 22 2c 10 2 83 13 Pottery 13.00 W 883 22 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 4.00 W 884 22 2c 10 2 83 13 Clearview? Stamped Pottery 1.00 MW 989 22 2c 2 3 89 clam shell 1.00 319 22 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/quartzite 2,863.00 25.00 320 22 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 350.50 10.00 321 22 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 172.70 45.00 322 22 3 10 3 53 29 large tertiary 181.80 3.00 5 23 3 10 1 54 1 Point, fine grained, Vosburg? 9.30 1.00 LA 6 23 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 4.70 1.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 12 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 948 23 3b 2 3 89 clam shell 10.00 118 24 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 0.30 1.00 1012 24 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 1.00 M-LW 355 24 2b 10 9 54 FCR 152.20 4.00 356 24 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 31.90 5.00 357 24 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 16.10 14.00 358 24 2b 10 1 53 1 Wading River Pt 2.60 1.00 LA 656 24 3 10 9 53 FCR 680.00 4.00 657 24 3 10 3 53 33 shatter 121.80 3.00 658 24 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 210.40 10.00 659 24 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 53.40 14.00 660 24 3 10 3 53 27 primary, pink 7.00 1.00 661 24 3 10 7 53 81 marginal Biface, yelloe 64.80 1.00 969 24 3 10 2 83 13 faint Matinecock Stamped, 1 brush int 2.00 E-MW 970 24 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 2.00 W 769 24 4a 10 9 53 FCR 402.00 3.00 770 24 4a 10 3 53 28 secondary 202.30 9.00 771 24 4a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 72.80 9.00 772 24 4a 10 3 53 27 primary 72.30 3.00 773 24 4a 10 3 53 33 blocky 48.40 1.00 176 25 1 coal 1.00 66 25 1 10 3 53 28 secondary 25.00 1.00 974 25 1 2 3 89 clam shell 1.00 391 25 2a 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz 57.00 3.00 392 25 2a 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 1.70 1.00 393 25 2a 10 3 51 29 tertiary, red 0.80 1.00 394 25 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 57.80 32.00 395 25 2a 10 3 53 28 secondary 180.90 10.00 396 25 2a 10 3 53 32 tested cobble/core 208.10 1.00 968 25 2a 10 2 83 13 1 Windsor Brushed & 1 Windsor 2.00 M-LW 668 25 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz/granite 454.00 16.00 669 25 2b 10 3 42 21 Hammerstone 181.70 1.00 670 25 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary, pink/wh 29.40 8.00 671 25 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 93.20 8.00 672 25 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 30.60 2.00 673 25 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary 0.70 1.00 953 25 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 3.00 W 954 25 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Cordmark Pottery 1.00 LW 955 25 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor, poss. Brushed Pottery 5.00 M-LW 956 25 2b 10 2 83 13 scallop stamped, poss. Cleaview Stamped 1.00 MW? 957 25 2b 10 2 83 13 incised ext, brush int, poss.No.Beach Incised 1.00 EW? 975 25 2b 2 89 shell 2.00 685 25 3a 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite/qtz 162.20 9.00 686 25 3a 10 9 39 FCR 454.00 1.00 687 25 3a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 27.00 9.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 13 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 688 25 3a 10 3 53 28 secondary 97.20 10.00 689 25 3a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 15.40 1.00 841 25 3a 10 2 83 13 Clearview Stamped Pottery, 1 rim 2.00 MW 842 25 3a 10 2 83 13 Pottery 12.00 W 843 25 3a 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 7.00 W 844 25 3a 10 2 83 13 Windsor, poss. Brushed 4.00 M-LW? 845 25 3a 10 2 83 13 Pottery, wavy lines, poss. Sebonac 1.00 LW? 995 25 3a 2 2 89 scallop shell 4.00 662 25 3b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite 1,134.00 8.00 663 25 3b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz 46.70 3.00 664 25 3b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 16.70 9.00 665 25 3b 10 3 53 28 secondary 66.60 6.00 666 25 3b 10 3 53 33 shatter 29.20 1.00 667 25 3b 10 3 53 27 primary, smokey 73.70 1.00 787 25 3b 2 1 17 deer, long bone 1.00 788 25 3b 2 1 17 whitetail, 2 femer,1 metapodil 3.00 789 25 3b 2 1 17 med terr. mammal,long bone 1.00 1050 25 5 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed 1.00 M-LW 63 25 5 10 3 53 28 secondary 74.00 3.00 64 25 5 10 3 53 27 primary 8.40 1.00 65 25 5 10 3 53 29 tertiary 2.20 5.00 115 26 1 clear glass 689 26 2 10 3 53 29 tertiary 32.80 1.00 690 26 2 10 9 53 FCR 194.20 2.00 691 26 2 10 3 53 27 primary 242.80 5.00 692 26 2 10 3 53 30 Cores/secondary 243.80 2.00 693 26 2 10 3 53 28 secondary, yell/wh 37.10 5.00 694 26 2 10 3 53 29 tertiary 34.30 14.00 695 26 2 10 3 53 30 Core/shatter 20.90 1.00 696 26 2 10 7 53 81 Biface frag 5.60 1.00 697 26 2 10 7 53 75 Utilized Flake/ scraper? 11.80 1.00 676 26 3 10 9 53 FCR 222.00 5.00 677 26 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 12.60 4.00 678 26 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 18.60 5.00 679 26 3 10 3 53 27 primary, fine grained 77.40 1.00 680 26 3 10 1 53 1 Point frag, smokey 2.70 1.00 918 26 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 116 26 5 10 3 53 33 shatter 165.00 1.00 177 26 5 riunite cap 1.00 913 26 5 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 117 27 1 10 3 53 29 tertiary 7.90 1.00 30 27 1 macadam 3.00 674 27 2 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz 37.60 3.00 675 27 2 10 3 53 29 tertiary, 1 smokey 17.80 5.00 833 27 2 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 14 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 543 27 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz/granite 510.00 11.00 544 27 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 34.50 9.00 545 27 3 10 7 53 71 Scraper or biface frag, smokey 4.20 1.00 546 27 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 82.20 6.00 547 27 3 10 3 53 27 primary 27.90 1.00 548 27 3 10 3 53 30 Core, primary flake 89.70 1.00 911 27 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery, 1 Windsor, 1 cordmark, 1 unident 3.00 W 967 27 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 2.00 W 681 27 5 flip top 1.00 682 27 5 plastic 1.00 683 27 5 macadam 1.00 684 27 5 1 clear & 1 amber glass 2.00 1035 28 2 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 1.00 M-LW 1036 28 2 10 2 83 13 poss. Clearview Stamped Pottery 1.00 MW 1037 28 2 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 708 28 2 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz 177.90 3.00 709 28 2 10 3 53 28 secondary 61.70 5.00 710 28 2 10 3 53 29 tertiary 30.80 4.00 711 28 2 10 3 53 33 shattwer 141.40 2.00 249 3 2a 10 9 53 FCR 26.20 2.00 250 3 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 1.90 1.00 251 3 2b 10 9 53 FCR 256.70 6.00 252 3 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 0.30 2.00 1020 3 2c 10 2 83 13 Pottery 2.00 W 1021 3 2c 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 1.00 M-LW 1022 3 2c 10 2 83 13 incised? Pottery 1.00 W 214 3 2c 10 9 53 FCR, qtz/schist 1,276.00 45.00 215 3 2c 10 3 54 27 primary 58.60 1.00 216 3 2c 10 3 54 28 secondary 67.20 6.00 217 3 2c 10 3 54 29 tertiary 78.10 27.00 218 3 2c 10 7 54 81 Biface, grey 59.40 1.00 190 3 3 10 9 39 FCR 907.00 10.00 191 3 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 31.50 1.00 192 3 3 10 7 53 75 Utilized Flake, smoky 6.80 1.00 193 3 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, rose 10.10 3.00 194 3 3 10 3 54 28 secondary 61.60 8.00 195 3 3 10 3 54 27 primary 18.70 4.00 196 3 3 10 3 53 33 shatter 28.90 4.00 197 3 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, w/smoky qtz 46.50 53.00 400 3 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtz 567.00 9.00 401 3 3 10 1 54 1 Point frag 3.90 1.00 402 3 3 10 1 54 1 mid-late Paleo-like Point, pumpkinseed shape 11.90 1.00 M-LP? 403 3 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 2.60 3.00 404 3 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 39.50 25.00 405 3 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, grey, pink, smokey 21.90 26.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 15 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 406 3 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary- French/Eng. flint? 0.60 1.00 407 3 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 63.40 6.00 408 3 3 10 3 53 27 primary 32.90 1.00 409 3 3 10 3 53 32 tested cobble 201.70 1.00 74 3 3 10 9 39 FCR 46.90 6.00 75 3 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 11.80 10.00 76 3 3 10 3 53 27 primary 2.20 1.00 813 3 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 4.00 W 814 3 3 10 2 83 13 Clearview Stamped Pottery 1.00 MW 815 3 3 10 2 83 13 possWindsor CM (cm ext, brshd int) 1.00 LW 873 3 3 2 3 89 clam shell 15.00 905 3 NW 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 925 3 3 10 2 83 13 cordmarked Pottery 1.00 W 939 3 3 2 3 89 clam shell 13.00 246 4 2a plastic 1.00 247 4 2a 10 9 54 FCR 16.00 3.00 248 4 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 2.70 1.00 982 4 2a 2 3 89 clam shell 2.00 170 4 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite 454.00 10.00 171 4 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 11.90 13.00 172 4 2b 10 3 53 29 large tertiary 111.40 7.00 173 4 2b 10 7 53 81 Biface frag 21.80 1.00 174 4 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary, clear 12.80 1.00 175 4 2b 10 3 53 29 large tertiary 62.50 5.00 180 4 2c 10 9 39 FCR ss/gneiss/quartz 397.00 17.00 181 4 2c 10 7 53 74 Chopper/Core 510.00 1.00 182 4 2c 10 3 53 28 secondary 44.70 11.00 183 4 2c 10 3 53 29 tertiary 43.80 34.00 184 4 2c 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl-grey 1.00 5.00 872 4 2c 2 3 89 clam shell 7.00 927 4 2c 10 2 83 13 Pottery 7.00 W 928 4 2c 10 3 83 13 Windsor Cordmarked or Brushed 2.00 M-LW 929 4 2c 10 3 83 13 scallop stamped, poss. Sebonac 1.00 LW? 930 4 2c 10 3 83 13 Vinette? Cm & Brush interior, ext brush 1.00 EW? 1005 4 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 6.00 W 1006 4 3 10 2 83 13 Sebonac-like Pottery 1.00 LW 269 4 3 10 9 53 FCR, qtz/schist 2,929.00 76.00 270 4 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, yellow-smokey 9.20 15.00 271 4 3 10 3 53 27 primary 27.40 5.00 272 4 3 10 3 54 28 secondary 135.00 17.00 273 4 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, wh/clear 95.90 89.00 274 4 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, greybr 2.10 9.00 275 4 3 10 7 53 75 Utilized Flake 23.80 1.00 276 4 3 10 1 52 1 Vosburg, greybl 9.80 1.00 LA 79 4 3 10 9 42 FCR 34.70 2.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 16 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 80 4 3 10 3 53 33 shatter 26.20 5.00 81 4 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 5.70 1.00 82 4 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary (1 pink qtz) 15.60 22.00 902 4 3 2 3 89 clam shell 11.00 1047 5 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed 1.00 M-LW 198 5 2b 10 9 53 FCR, qtz, ss/cong 1,361.00 18.00 199 5 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 139.00 5.00 200 5 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 47.60 15.00 201 5 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary, smoky 4.00 2.00 202 5 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 12.30 1.00 203 5 2b 10 7 53 81 Biface mid section, smokey 3.50 1.00 204 5 2b 10 1 53 1 Levanna Pt, smokey 1.70 1.00 M-LW 912 5 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery, 3 cordmarked 4.00 W 1007 5 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery, 1 w/ int brushing? 4.00 W 152 5 3 10 9 39 FCR 4,139.00 44.00 153 5 3 10 1 54 1 Rossville Pt, wh 3.10 1.00 LA-EW 154 5 3 10 1 54 1 Wading River Pt,wh 1.60 1.00 LA 155 5 3 10 1 54 1 Levanna, grbr 5.70 1.00 M-LW 156 5 3 10 3 42 21 Hammerstone 417.00 2.00 157 5 3 10 3 53 27 primary 104.40 1.00 158 5 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 80.60 8.00 159 5 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 71.20 21.00 232 5 4a 10 9 39 FCR, ss/gneiss/granite 2,722.00 24.00 233 5 4a 10 3 53 32 tested cobble, yellow&wh 289.00 1.00 234 5 4a 10 3 54 28 secondary, w/y 150.30 9.00 235 5 4a 10 3 54 29 large tertiary, y/w 160.10 6.00 236 5 4a 10 3 53 33 shatter 72.80 6.00 256 5 4a 10 9 53 FCR 126.60 1.00 257 5 4a 10 3 53 27 primary 6.80 1.00 446 5 4a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 0.20 1.00 151 6 2b 10 7 52 81 Biface/preform, grey 19.50 1.00 237 6 2b 10 9 39 FCR, ss,qtz,gneiss 1,191.00 22.00 238 6 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 144.00 10.00 239 6 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 28.50 25.00 240 6 2b 10 3 53 33 shatter 10.10 6.00 241 6 2b 10 3 52 29 tertiary, Norm 0.10 1.00 934 6 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 2.00 W 1038 6 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 1.00 M-LW 1039 6 3 10 8 83 85 Pipe bowl w/incised checkerboard design 1.00 M-LW? 84 6 3 10 9 39 FCR (ss&quartzite) 805.00 24.00 85 6 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl chert 2.00 3.00 86 6 3 10 3 53 30 Core 66.60 1.00 87 6 3 10 3 53 27 primary 14.00 2.00 88 6 3 10 3 53 30 Core/primary flake 73.60 1.00 89 6 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 58.50 15.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 17 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 960 6 3 2 89 shell 6.00 164 7 2a iron chain link 1.00 624 7 2b 10 9 42 FCR, granite/ss/qtz 2,041.00 29.00 625 7 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 214.50 8.00 626 7 2b 10 3 53 30 Core, fine grained 197.60 1.00 627 7 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 62.20 7.00 628 7 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 81.80 41.00 629 7 2b 10 3 53 33 shatter 55.00 1.00 630 7 2b 10 1 53 1 Point fragment 0.80 1.00 631 7 2b 10 7 53 81 Biface frags 48.70 5.00 632 7 2b 10 7 53 71 possible Scraper 2.20 1.00 848 7 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 2.00 W 849 7 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 4.00 M-LW 850 7 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 3.00 W 334 7 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtzite 454.00 4.00 335 7 3 10 3 53 27 primary 425.00 1.00 336 7 3 10 3 53 27 primary 88.80 1.00 350 7 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qt 454.00 8.00 351 7 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 208.60 13.00 352 7 3 10 3 53 27 primary 129.10 2.00 353 7 3 10 7 53 81 possible Bifaces 57.60 2.00 354 7 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 43.70 15.00 504 7 3 10 9 53 FCR 1,361.00 22.00 505 7 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 113.40 30.00 506 7 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 246.10 15.00 507 7 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 146.40 1.00 508 7 3 10 3 53 27 primary 3.30 1.00 509 7 3 10 7 53 81 rough Bifaces/Core frags 137.40 4.00 510 7 3 10 7 53 71 possible Scraper 12.90 1.00 760 7 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 86.80 13.00 761 7 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 25.90 7.00 762 7 3 10 3 53 27 primary 40.60 2.00 763 7 3 2 1 89 oyster 0.70 2.00 921 7 3 2 1 89 shell, poss. oyster 10.00 985 7 3 2 1 89 oyster shell 11.00 32 7 4a 10 9 39 FCR 340.00 2.00 33 7 4a 10 3 53 32 tested cobble 198.00 1.00 34 7 4a 10 3 53 27 primary 60.30 2.00 35 7 4a 10 7 53 75 poss. Utilized Flake 60.80 1.00 36 7 4a 10 3 53 28 secondary (pink&white) 110.50 13.00 37 7 4a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 89.00 31.00 38 7 4a 10 7 53 81 Biface 17.30 1.00 559 8 2b 10 9 42 FCR 453.59 7.00 560 8 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 31.70 20.00 561 8 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 22.10 5.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 18 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 562 8 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 230.00 7.00 563 8 2b 10 7 53 81 Biface 2.10 1.00 1043 8 3 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed 2.00 M-LW 1044 8 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 5.00 300 8 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss, qtz 397.00 13.00 301 8 3 10 7 53 71 Scraper? 10.40 1.00 302 8 3 10 1 54 1 Levanna Pt 1.70 1.00 M-LW 303 8 3 10 7 54 81 Biface mid-section, yellow 30.40 1.00 304 8 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 24.40 2.00 305 8 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 4.60 17.00 306 8 3 10 6 53 1 Perforator? 2.10 1.00 310 8 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite/gneiss 794.00 8.00 311 8 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 137.90 9.00 312 8 3 10 3 53 27 primary 92.60 4.00 313 8 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 21.00 14.00 314 8 3 10 3 53 33 shatter, smokey 12.40 1.00 445 8 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 15.80 1.00 12 8 4a 10 3 53 28 secondary 157.30 10.00 13 8 4a 10 3 53 27 primary 119.50 1.00 14 8 4a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 46.30 9.00 23 9 2a 10 3 53 28 secondary 3.80 1.00 24 9 2a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 1.10 1.00 1018 9 SW 2b 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 1049 9 SE 2b 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed 1.00 M-LW 324 9 2b 10 9 ? FCR, cong 14.50 1.00 325 9 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 18.80 1.00 326 9 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 2.30 1.00 327 9 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 0.20 1.00 328 9 2b 10 1 54 1 Point tip/biface 6.10 1.00 380 9 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 17.80 2.00 381 9 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 30.30 6.00 382 9 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 4.30 2.00 500 9 2b 10 9 42 FCR 27.10 3.00 501 9 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary, wh&grey 9.10 4.00 502 9 2b 10 3 53 27 primary, pink 85.50 1.00 503 9 2b 10 3 53 27 primary, fine grained 4.30 1.00 511 9 NW 2b 10 3 53 27 primary 340.00 1.00 512 9 NW 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 42.50 7.00 564 9 SW 2b 10 9 42 FCR 39.80 1.00 565 9 SW 2b 10 3 53 29 tertiary 6.10 7.00 566 9 SW 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 59.20 1.00 567 9 SW 2b 10 3 53 28 secondary 27.90 5.00 568 9 SW 2b 10 7 53 81 Biface/Projectile.pt.Preform 22.00 1.00 779 9 2b 2 1 17 harbor seal ear casing (bulla) 1.00 1014 9 NW 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 19 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 315 9 NE 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite 1,814.00 5.00 316 9 NE 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 9.10 2.00 317 9 NE 3 10 3 53 27 primary 80.30 1.00 318 9 NE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary, smokey 8.60 4.00 738 9 SW 3 10 9 53 FCR 9.10 3.00 739 9 SW 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 10.50 2.00 740 9 SW 3 10 3 39 29 tertiary 2.80 1.00 745 9 SE 3 10 9 53 FCR 21.70 3.00 746 9 SE 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 31.70 19.00 747 9 SE 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 7.00 1.00 748 9 SE 3 10 3 53 27 primary 6.90 1.00 749 9 SE 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary 0.60 1.00 753 9 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 43.60 17.00 754 9 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 75.50 7.00 755 9 3 10 3 53 27 primary 47.90 2.00 756 9 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary 3.90 1.00 757 9 3 10 7 53 71 Scraper 1.80 1.00 758 9 3 2 3 89 clam 1.00 759 9 3 10 9 42 FCR 757.08 9.00 868 9 SE 3 2 3 89 clam shell 9.00 976 9 NW 3 2 3 89 clam shell 6.00 991 9 SW 3 2 89 shell 1.00 266 9 4a 10 3 54 27 primary 20.10 1.00 267 9 4a 10 3 53 29 tertiary 11.70 6.00 268 9 4a 10 9 53 FCR, qtz/schist 80.30 4.00 940 9 4a coal 1.00 397 1 10 2 54 14 Nutting Stone? 624.00 1.00 398 1 10 9 54 Heat effected rock 3,714.00 1.00 399 1 1983 quarter 1.00 421 1 10 9 39 FCR, ss/qtzite 2,098.00 37.00 422 1 10 1 53 1 Wading River Pt 2.20 1.00 LA 423 1 10 3 52 29 tertiary, norm 2.60 1.00 424 1 10 3 53 30 Core? 214.30 1.00 425 1 10 3 53 29 tertiary 60.00 22.00 426 1 10 3 53 28 secondary 165.20 9.00 427 1 10 3 53 28 secondary 182.80 1.00 428 1 10 3 53 27 primary 32.30 1.00 429 1 10 3 53 30 Core/secondry 111.00 1.00 430 1 10 1 53 1 Preform, pink 9.00 1.00 475 1 10 9 53 FCR 4,706.00 10.00 476 1 10 3 53 28 secondary 116.60 1.00 477 1 10 2 42 16 Muller/mano (broken into 3 pieces) 1,077.00 3.00 492 1 10 9 42 FCR, granite/qtz/schist 5,273.00 15.00 581 1 10 9 39 FCR sandstone/granite/schist 3,855.53 56.00 582 1 10 3 53 33 blocky 102.80 8.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 20 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 583 1 10 7 53 67 flake/Knife 81.20 1.00 584 1 10 3 53 29 tertiary 37.20 12.00 585 1 10 3 53 28 secondary 27.10 6.00 586 1 10 3 53 27 primary 26.00 3.00 587 1 10 7 53 86 possible Uniface 1.60 1.00 588 1 10 1 54 1 Brewerton side notched pt. 3.10 1.00 LA 589 1 10 7 52 81 Biface 9.00 1.00 590 1 10 7 53 85 Bifacial flake Knife 61.50 1.00 790 1 2 5 17 bony fish, cranial 1.00 816 1 10 2 83 13 Pottery, brown 2.00 W 817 1 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery, graybrown, 1 rim 6.00 W 818 1 10 2 83 13 Windsor Cord marked 6.00 LW 819 1 2 3 89 clam shell 8.00 836 1 2 3 89 clam shell 15.00 837 1 2 1 89 oyster shell 1.00 910 1 2 83 shell 3.00 1016 12 1 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 1017 12 1 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 1.00 W 39 12 NW 1 10 9 39 FCR (ss&quartzite) 145.00 12.00 40 12 NW 1 10 3 52 29 tertiary, chert 2.60 1.00 41 12 NW 1 10 3 53 28 secondary 26.90 3.00 42 12 NW 1 10 3 53 29 tertiary 42.10 16.00 467 12 1 10 9 42 FCR, granite/qtz 283.00 15.00 468 12 1 10 3 53 29 tertiary 26.40 24.00 469 12 1 10 3 53 28 secondary 57.80 11.00 470 12 1 10 1 54 1 Levanna-like Pt/Preform 16.50 1.00 M-LW 83 12 SW 1 10 9 39 FCR 575.00 1.00 869 12 NW 1 2 3 89 clam shell 9.00 922 12 1 10 2 83 13 Pottery, 1 pos cordmarked 3.00 W 931 12 1 2 3 89 clam shell 17.00 932 12 1 2 1 89 oyster 1.00 933 12 1 2 89 shell 35.00 147 13 SE 1 10 3 53 27 primary 62.50 3.00 148 13 SE 1 10 7 53 81 small Biface 2.50 1.00 149 13 SE 1 10 3 53 29 tertiary 23.90 24.00 150 13 SE 1 10 3 52 29 tertiary, grey/br 0.10 1.00 598 10 10 9 53 FCR quartz/granite/schist 2,976.69 45.00 599 10 10 3 53 33 blocky 202.60 7.00 600 10 10 3 53 30 Core/FCR 203.20 1.00 601 10 10 3 53 27 primary 43.90 4.00 602 10 10 3 53 29 tertiary 50.90 13.00 603 10 10 3 53 28 secondary/blocky 78.20 1.00 604 10 10 3 52 29 tertiary 0.70 1.00 605 10 10 3 42 21 Hammerstone 29.50 1.00 606 10 10 7 53 81 Biface 60.30 1.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 21 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 607 10 10 7 53 81 Biface 12.60 1.00 67 10 10 7 53 81 Biface-Strike a light 3.50 1.00 68 10 10 3 53 28 secondary 4.10 2.00 69 10 10 3 53 29 tertiary 5.80 2.00 805 10 2 1 17 white tail, left tibia 1.00 806 10 2 5 17 shark, vert 1.00 807 10 2 5 17 codfish, vert 3.00 808 10 2 5 17 Atlantic cod, vert 9.00 809 10 2 5 17 ling fish, vert 2.00 846 10 2 2 89 scallop shell 60.00 847 10 2 3 89 clam shell 64.00 891 10 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 2.00 W 441 11 10 9 39 FCR 454.00 3.00 442 11 10 3 53 28 secondary 71.60 3.00 636 11 10 9 39 FCR sandstone/quartz/granite 1,133.98 5.00 637 11 10 3 53 28 secondary 212.80 8.00 638 11 10 3 53 28 secondary 59.30 1.00 639 11 10 7 53 67 flake/Knife 40.80 1.00 640 11 10 3 53 29 tertiary 2.50 3.00 641 11 10 3 53 27 primary 37.30 1.00 473 12 10 9 54 FCR, qtzite/granite 3,459.00 10.00 474 12 10 3 53 29 tertiary 13.30 8.00 485 12 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite/qtz 2,155.00 16.00 486 12 10 3 53 28 secondary 52.20 4.00 487 12 10 3 53 29 tertiary 4.90 3.00 488 12 10 3 51 29 tertiary, br 0.40 1.00 874 12 10 2 83 13 Pottery 11.00 W 875 12 10 2 83 13 Windsor, Cordmarked? 4.00 LW? 876 12 10 2 83 13 Matinecock?Stamp ext/CM int?, CM rim 1.00 E-MW? 877 12 10 2 83 13 incised or brushed Pottery 1.00 W 89 12 10 3 53 27 primary 264.40 2.00 903 12 2 3 89 clam shell 1.00 990 12 2 89 shell 4.00 478 24 12 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite,qtz 4,366.00 14.00 479 24 12 10 3 39 21 Hammerstone 1,191.00 1.00 480 24 12 10 3 53 28 secondary, wh/yellow 342.00 7.00 481 24 12 10 3 53 29 tertiary 63.00 3.00 482 24 12 10 3 53 27 primary 119.70 2.00 483 24 12 10 3 53 30 Core, fine grained 166.30 1.00 484 24 12 10 3 53 32 tested cobble 175.30 1.00 861 24 12 10 2 83 13 Pottery 4.00 W 862 24 12 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 3.00 M-LW 1045 13 10 2 83 13 Pottery 5.00 W 699 13 10 9 42 FCR, granite/qtz 2,211.00 10.00 700 13 10 3 53 28 secondary 46.60 5.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 22 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 701 13 10 3 53 27 primary 64.50 1.00 702 13 10 3 53 29 tertiary 12.00 7.00 703 13 10 3 53 33 shatter 24.90 1.00 704 13 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 0.60 2.00 705 13 10 1 54 1 Wading River/ Lamoka Pt 3.80 1.00 LA 810 13 2 1 17 med terr mammal, long bone 2.00 811 13 2 5 17 bony fish, 2 cranial, 5 vert 7.00 812 13 2 5 17 Atlantic cod, vert 2.00 885 13 10 2 83 13 Pottery 4.00 W 443 28 13 10 9 53 FCR 2,041.00 1.00 444 28 13 10 3 53 30 Core 1,474.00 1.00 712 28 13 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite/schist 195.00 4.00 713 28 13 10 3 53 29 tertiary 13.30 5.00 714 28 13 10 3 53 21 Hammerstone cobble 121.30 1.00 715 28 13 10 7 53 81 marg Biface/flake knife?,pink 64.20 1.00 938 28 13 2 3 89 clam shell 10.00 417 2 10 9 53 FCR, qtz/schist 510.00 10.00 418 2 10 3 52 29 tertiary, bl 0.20 1.00 419 2 10 3 53 29 tertiary 72.20 8.00 420 2 10 3 53 28 secondary 6.20 1.00 791 2 2 1 17 med. terr. mammal, cranial 1.00 792 2 2 1 17 unident mammal, vert. 1.00 793 2 2 2 17 ruddy duck, prox. left humerus 1.00 794 2 2 5 17 bony fish, cranial 1.00 795 2 2 5 17 codfish, epihyal 1.00 796 2 2 89 cockle/heart shell 1.00 851 2 2 3 89 clam shell 12.00 852 2 2 2 89 scallop shell 2.00 853 2 2 1 89 oyster shell 1.00 854 2 2 4 89 slipper shell 3.00 855 2 2 5 89 whelk shell 1.00 210 13 SW 2 10 9 39 FCR 14.30 6.00 211 13 SW 2 10 3 53 29 tertiary 4.10 6.00 212 13 SW 2 10 3 53 28 secondary 44.80 2.00 213 13 SW 2 10 3 53 33 shatter 22.30 3.00 28 13 2 10 9 39 FCR 7.90 2.00 29 13 2 10 3 53 29 tertiary, smokey 2.70 5.00 785 13 2 2 2 17 2 turkey,distal humerus 1.00 820 13 SW 2 2 3 89 clam shell 83.00 821 13 SW 2 2 2 89 scallop shell 11.00 920 13 2 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 981 13 2 2 3 89 clam shell 7.00 1034 3 10 2 83 13 Pottery 3.00 W 493 3 10 7 52 81 Biface, norm 12.60 1.00 494 3 10 3 52 29 tertiary, 1 bl, 1 green 1.40 2.00 Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 23 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 495 3 10 1 52 1 Vosburg? Pt., norm 10.20 1.00 LA 496 3 10 3 53 30 Core cobble 88.20 1.00 497 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 2.50 1.00 498 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 3.00 2.00 576 3 10 9 53 FCR quartz/sandsone/granite 3,458.64 11.00 577 3 10 9 39 FCR 173.90 10.00 578 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 29.10 25.00 579 3 10 3 53 27 primary 123.70 11.00 580 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 23.60 5.00 614 3 10 9 39 FCR, ss/granite/qtz 19,845.00 40.00 615 3 10 3 53 33 shatter 18.70 1.00 616 3 10 3 53 27 primary 454.00 3.00 617 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 31.90 1.00 979 3 2 3 89 clam shell 5.00 102 3 NW 3 10 3 53 28 secondary 21.30 5.00 103 3 NW 3 10 3 53 29 tertiary 5.00 2.00 864 3 NW 3 2 3 89 clam shell 8.00 878 4 10 2 83 13 Windsor Pottery 10.00 W 879 4 10 2 83 13 Windsor Brushed Pottery 7.00 M-LW 880 4 10 2 83 13 Pottery 6.00 W 881 4 10 2 83 13 scallop stamped Pottery 1.00 W 19 5 10 9 53 FCR (quartz&ss) 340.00 6.00 20 5 10 3 53 29 tertiary 1.60 3.00 21 5 10 3 53 28 secondary 9.00 4.00 323 5 10 3 53 29 tertiary, shatter 79.30 2.00 1027 6 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 288 6 10 9 42 FCR, granite/ss 5,443.00 19.00 289 6 10 3 53 29 tertiary/shatter 290.70 9.00 290 6 10 3 53 27 primary 92.50 3.00 291 6 10 3 53 29 tertiary, 1 pink 40.20 13.00 292 6 10 3 53 28 secondary 15.80 1.00 980 6 2 3 89 clam shell 9.00 1051 7 2 5 17 shark vert 1.00 22 7 10 7 53 88 Levanna Preform 8.50 1.00 M-LW 329 7 10 9 39 FCR, ss.qtz 283.00 11.00 330 7 10 3 53 27 primary 340.00 1.00 331 7 10 3 52 27 primary 11.00 1.00 332 7 10 3 53 28 secondary 60.80 5.00 333 7 10 3 53 29 tertiary 54.90 6.00 797 7 2 2 17 bird, sternal 3.00 798 7 2 2 17 med bird, sternal 1.00 992 7 2 3 89 clam shell 27.00 993 7 2 1 89 oyster shell? 2.00 994 7 2 89 shell 20.00 2 8 10 1 54 1 Levanna Pt 8.70 1.00 M-LW Thursday, January 15, 2009 PAYNE3 Page 24 CAT TU QUAD FT LV GP CL MAT MOR COMMENT WT CT AGE 3 8 10 3 54 29 tertiary 0.50 2.00 4 8 10 3 53 29 tertiary, smokey 0.50 1.00 799 8 2 1 17 unident mammal, long bones 6.00 800 8 2 2 17 bird, long bones 6.00 801 8 2 2 17 water birds, coracoid,phalanx 2.00 802 8 2 5 17 bony fish, 4 cranial,1 vert 5.00 803 8 2 5 17 shark, vert 1.00 804 8 2 3 89 hard clam 1.00 834 8 2 3 89 clam shell 9.00 835 8 2 2 89 scallop shell 2.00 9 10 9 39 FCR 83.50 6.00 1030 9 10 2 83 13 Pottery 1.00 W 650 9 10 3 42 21 Hammerstone/FCR 193.30 1.00 651 9 10 3 42 21 Hammerstone/FCR 283.00 1.00 652 9 10 3 53 28 secondary 11.00 3.00 653 9 10 3 53 29 tertiary 9.40 2.00 654 9 10 9 FCR, conglomerate 121.90 1.00 655 9 10 3 53 33 shatter 21.30 1.00 7 9 10 3 53 29 tertiary 6.30 8.00 McKnight 2/1/08

REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF FLOTATION-RECOVERED PLANT REMAINS FROM PHASE III INVESTIGATIONS AT THE PAYNE SITE FORT POND, MONTAUK, NEW YORK

Methods Recent data recovery efforts by Tracker Archaeology, Inc. at the Payne Site, Fort Pond, Montauk, New York, included the collection, processing and analysis of plant macro-remains. Systematic study of flotation-recovered plant remains from archaeological contexts at the Payne site contributes to an understanding of site form and function, subsistence, and landscape conditions during the prehistoric era. Material culture recovered from the Payne site document that the site was predominantly occupied during the Late Woodland period. The presence of lithic artifacts characteristic of Late Archaic cultures suggest that the site was repeatedly occupied over a long period of prehistory.

Soil samples were retained for flotation processing from eleven cultural features conforming to 4 basic feature types (hearth, pit, shell, stain) (see Table 01).

Table 01: Summary of Flotation Samples. Feature Type N of samples Volume grams carbonized (liters) material 1 Hearth 2 4.25 0.47 2 Shell Midden 1 1.5 0.16 3 Hearth 1 1.5 0.18 4 Pit 1 3.5 0.38 6 Pit Stain 1 3 0.30 7 Pit 1 4 0.67 8 Shell Concentration 1 2 0.36 9 Stain 1 2 0.04 10 Pit 2 8.5 4.18 12 Hearth/Pit 1 2 0.16 13 Hearth/Pit 1 2 0.72 11 features 4 basic feature types 13 34.25 7.62

The soil samples were processed using a Flote-Tech flotation system equipped with 0.325mm fine fraction and 1.0mm coarse fraction screens. The Flote-Tech system is a multi-modal flotation system which facilitates the separation and recovery of plant materials from the soil matrix via agitation in water. Processing resulted in two size fractions (heavy and light). Floted portions were air dried. All plant remains recovered through flotation were combined and passed through a 2mm geological sieve, yielding fractions of 2 different sizes for analysis. Weights and sample descriptions of the resulting greater than or equal to 2mm and less than 2mm fractions were recorded. The greater than or equal to 2mm charcoal specimens were examined under low magnification (10X to 40X) and sorted into general categories of material (i.e. wood, seed, nut, miscellaneous material, etc.). Description, count and weight were taken for each category of the greater than or equal to 2mm carbonized material. The less than 2mm size fractions were examined under low magnification and scanned for any remains of seeds or cultivated plants.

Identifications were attempted on all seed and miscellaneous plant remains recovered, and on a sub-sample of 20 randomly selected wood fragments from each sample in accordance with standard practice (Pearsall 2000). Identifications of all classes of botanical remains were made to the genus level when possible, to the family level when limited diagnostic morphology was available, and to the species level only when the assignment could be made with absolute certainty. When botanical specimens were found to be in eroded or fragmentary condition, a variety of general categories were used to reflect the degree of identification possible. General wood categories within the analyzed assemblage include ‘ring porous’, ‘deciduous taxa’. ‘coniferous taxa’ and ‘unidentifiable’. The term amorphous carbon is used in this report to label carbonized vegetal material lacking any identifiable characteristics.

The processed samples yielded both carbonized and non-carbonized plant materials. Non- carbonized plant remains observed in the flotation-derived botanical assemblage included modern roots and non-carbonized seed. Non-carbonized seeds were described (see Table 03), but were not picked from the sample matrices or quantified. It is highly unlikely that these non- carbonized plant specimens were interred concurrent with period artifacts and the carbonized macro-botanical remains. Although the persistence of non-carbonized plant remains from consistently xeric or water-saturated environments does occur (Hastorf and Popper 1988; Minnis 1981; Pearsall 2000), such soil conditions do not accurately characterize the Payne site. Non-carbonized plant remains occurring within archaeological soil samples from similar site environments are usually considered to be intrusive modern specimens (Minnis 1981; Keepax 1977). The recovery of non-carbonized plant remains may reveal specific contamination episodes associated with animal (i.e. rodent, insect, gastropod) burrowing, the action of root growth and decay, aeolian processes, or by the combined effects of these factors.

Table 02: Ecofacts Observed within the Analyzed Samples.

Feature Roots Insect parts Sand/gravel/rock Bone Lithic Shell Snail Mica Ceramics fishscale (bivalve) 1xxxxx 1(2) x x x 2xxxx x 3x x x 4xxxx x 6x xx x x 7x xx x x 8x xx xx x 9xxxx xxx 10 x x x x 10(2) x x x x x x 12 x x x 13xx x xxxx x

In addition to floral remains, the processed flotation samples contained a variety of cultural artfacts and ecological debris. Table 02 indicates the presence of various types of ecofacts and material culture observed in the analyzed samples.

All botanical identifications were made under low magnification (10X to 40X) with the aide of standard texts (Panshin and deZeeuw 1980; Schopmeyer 1974; Martin and Barkely 1961; Hoadley 1990), and checked against plant specimens from a modern reference collection representative of the flora of the project area (Taylor 1923; Gleason 1962). Specimens were weighed using an electronic balance accurate to 0.01 grams.

Results of Analysis Flotation processing of a site total of 34.25 liters of feature fill from eleven features at the Payne site yielded 7.62 grams of carbonized plant material (a mean average of 0.22 grams per liter of processed feature fill). An inventory of recovered plant macro-remains is provided in Table 03.

Wood charcoal dominated the feature assemblage, accounting for over 93 percent (by weight) of the recovered archeobotanical remains. Wood charcoal was present in all features analyzed, being most abundant within the flotation sample analyzed from Feature 10(2). Carbonized wood fragments were generally small and abraded, and their poor condition limited taxonomic classification (45% of the wood assemblage was unidentifiable). Maple (Acer sp.) (11% [n=244]) and pine (Pinus spp.) (10%) species were the most common wood types identified, followed by hickory (Carya sp.) (5%) and oaks (Quercus spp.) (4%). Inconclusive woods classified include ring porous (2%), coniferous (3%) and deciduous (16%).

Nushell remains were scanty sitewide, with nutshell occurring in 6 of the 13 samples analyzed. Thick walled hickory (Carya sp.) nutshell was the sole taxon identified. A site total of 37 fragments weighing 0.35 grams was recovered.

Carbonized seed remains were also limited within the Payne site flotation samples. Four carbonized seeds were recovered (Features 1(2), 3, 4, and 10(2)). Two seeds were clearly identifiable as grape (Vitis sp.). The remaining 2 specimens were fragmentary and were unidentifiable.

Miscellaneous plant remains were limited to 7 fragments of amorphous carbon (0.12 grams) recovered from Features 8 and 12.

Non-carbonized seeds were present in 92% of the analyzed flotation sample from the Payne site. Pigweed (Amaranthus sp.), carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata), poke (Phytolacca Americana), knotweed or dock (Polygonum/Rumex), raspberry or blackberry (Rubus spp.) elder (Sambucus canadensis) and nightshade (SOLANACEAE) were identified. These seeds are probably modern in origin, and are unrelated to prehistoric activities at the site.

Discussion The archeobotanical assemblage analyzed from the Fort Pond site provides important data regarding site subsistence and local landscape conditions during the Late Woodland period.

The presence of hickory nutshells and grape suggest that wild-gathered edible harvests were important to the subsistence economy of the site. These food plant remains indicated that fall- gathered mast resources and fleshy fruits were consumed and perhaps stored for winter use. The analyzed assemblage provides no evidence of plant cultivation.

Some inferences regarding the prehistoric landscape in the vicinity of Fort Pond can be made based on the botanical remains recovered from archaeological contexts. The physical features of Montauk are unique, with vegetation being largely influenced by the area’s surface and groundwater characteristics, soils, and proximity to the coast. Ecological communities have evolved through a unique combination of factors: The effect of maritime winds on the area have been considerable, creating a scoured landscape and inhibiting natural reforestation of cleared areas; Erosion of land mass has also changed the shape of vegetative communities within the project area; Livestock grazing over much of the region has been intense since the area was settled in the first half of the seventeenth century; and intentional burning of the area has been conducted by Native American and European peoples for many centuries (Taylor 1923:10).

Native forest cover over the project area was characterized by a mixed hardwood forest and areas of grassland. Historically, forested areas of Montauk were dominated by oak forests (Quercus velutina, Q. alba, and Q. coccinea), with hickory (Carya tomentosa, C. glabra), pine (Pinus spp.) and American chestnut (Castanea dentata). The wood charcoal and nutshell remains recovered from this data recovery effort at the Payne site – representing maple, pine, oak and hickory species – are entirely consistent with the pre-contact forest cover of the region (Braun 1950:250-253).

These data from the Payne site complement initial archeobotanical studies conducted at the site. A single flotation sample analyzed from Feature 4 (formerly Feature 2) as part of Phase II testing at Payne documented the presence of oak and hickory wood charcoal, hickory nutshell, amorphous carbon, and non-carbonized seeds (McKnight 2003). REFERENCES CITED Braun, E. Lucy 1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blackburn Press. Caldwell, New Jersey.

Gleason, H.A. 1962 Plants of the Vicinity of New York. New York Botanical Garden by Hafner Publishing Co., New York.

Hastorf, C.A., V.S. Popper, eds. 1988 Current Paleoethnobotany. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hoadley, Bruce 1990 Identifying Wood. Taunton Press, Inc. Newtown, Connecticut.

Keepax, Carole 1977 Contamination of Archaeological Deposits by seeds of Modern Origin with Particular Reference to the Use of Flotation Machines. Journal of Archaeological Science. 4:221-229.

Martin A. and W. Barkely 1961 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in Archeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. American Antiquity 46:143-151

McKnight, Justine Woodard 2003 Flotation recovered Plant Remains from the Fort Pond Site, Phase II Investigations. Report submitted to Tracker Archaeology, Inc., Monroe NY.

Panshin, Alexis and Carl deZeeuw 1980 Textbook of Wood Technology. Volume 1, 4th edition. McGraw Hill, New York.

Pearsall, D. 2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Second Edition Academic Press, San Diego.

Schopmeyer, C.S. 1974 Seeds of Woody Plants. Agricultural Handbook 450. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

Taylor, Norman 1923 Brooklyn Botanic Garden Memoirs, Volume II, The Vegetation of Long Island. Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Brooklyn. Table 03: Flotation-recovered Plant Remains Recovered during Phase III Investigations at the Payne Site feature 1 1(2) 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 10(2) 12 13 total feature type hearth hearth shell mid hearth pit pit stain pit shell conc stain pit pit hearth/pit hearth/pit 13 samples volume (liters) 2 2.25 1.5 1.5 3.5 3 4 2 2 4 4.5 2 2 34.25 weight analyzed carbonized plant remains (grams) 0.28 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.38 0.30 0.67 0.36 0.04 0.45 3.73 0.16 0.72 7.62

WOOD CHARCOAL (carbonized) (n of frags) 46 26 19 35 51 49 84 29 5 63 341 30 73 851 total weight (grams) 0.28 0.18 0.11 0.17 0.37 0.26 0.45 0.23 0.04 0.44 3.71 0.15 0.72 7.11 Acer sp. (maple) 4 2143326 Carya sp. (hickory) 333 211 Pinus spp. (pine) 9 3 21 5 5 25 Quercus spp. (white oak) 65314 Quercus spp. (oak) 1 33 7 ring porous 314 coniferous taxa 268 deciduous taxa 5 2899 32 38 unidentifiable 5 16 19 15 9 9 5 8 3 10 7 5 111 total identified fragments 20 20 19 20 20 20 20 20 5 20 20 20 20 244 NUT REMAINS (carbonized) (n of frags) 0 0 7 0 0 4 23 1 0 1 1 0 0 37 total weight (grams) 0 0 0.05 0 0 0.04 0.22 0.02 0 0.005 0.01 0 0 0.345 Carya sp. (hickory, thick walled nutshell fragments) 7 4231 1 1 37 SEEDS (carbonized) (n of specimens) 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1004 total weight (grams) 0 0.01 0 0.005 0.005 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0 0 0.025 unidentifiable seed fragment 1 1 unidentifiable large seed fragment 1 1 Vitis sp. (grape) fragment 1 1 2 MISC PLANT REMAINS (carbonized) ( n of frags) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0207 total weight (grams) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.12 amorphous carbon 5 2 7 NON-CARBONIZED SEEDS (presence) x x x x x x x x x x x x 92% Amaranthus sp. (pigweed) x x 15% Mollugo verticillata (carpetweed) x 8% Phytolacca americana (poke) x 8% Polygonum/Rumex (knotweed/dock) x 8% Rubus sp. (blackberry/raspberry) xxxxxxxxxx x 85% Sambucus candensis (elder) xxxx x x x 54% SOLANACEAE (nightshade) x 8%