Volunteering with The Vermont Archaeological Society: …vtarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/v11_ch2_reduced.pdf · 2018. 9. 8. · archaeology. Since professional Cultural Resource

15

Volunteering withThe Vermont Archaeological Society:

Excavations at the Severence Site, Colchesterby Charles L.F. Knight

Introduction

The Vermont Archaeological Society (VAS)coalesced in 1968 out of the desire to bring togethera loose-knit community of amateur and professionalarchaeologists that existed in Vermont at that time.Central to the newly formed organization was a coreset of aims that promoted the research andconservation of archaeological resources, all thewhile raising the public’s awareness of Vermont’sarchaeological past (Morrissey 1969; Popecki1994). The timing of t he Society’s formationfollowed a series of local and national events thatwere directly affecting Vermont’s cultural heritage.The first occurred in 1965 with the appointment ofDr. William Haviland to the fac ulty of theDepartment of Anthropology at the Univer sity ofVermont. Dr. Haviland was a principal force behindthe development of the VAS. In addition, hespearheaded the earliest field projects carried out byVAS volunteers and the deve lopment of theVermont Site Survey, which today has cataloguedapproximately 4,000 sites and find spots throughoutthe state. The second major event occurred at thenational level, with the construction of the federalinterstate system throughout the 1960s. Thisincluded the c onstruction of I nterstate-89 (I-89),which stimulated large amounts of a rchaeologicalsalvage within Ver mont. One of the first acts ofbusiness for the VAS was to establish a liaison withthe Vermont highway department to ensure that noarchaeological sites were being destroyed becauseof the I-89 construction (Morrissey 1969).

Fittingly, the first dig carried out in 1969 by theVAS was at Pine Island in Colchester, in an effort tomitigate the destruction brought about by theconstruction of the Burlington Beltline. One of the

results of the dig was the identification of twohistoric period charcoal kilns, VT-CH-1 and VT-CH-2, which became the first two sites inChittenden County formally identified on the newlydeveloped Vermont Site Survey. Throughout the1970s, the VAS was very active in Vermont fieldarchaeology. Since professional Cultural ResourceManagement (CRM) firms had yet to develop in thestate, the VAS served as the principal avenue forconducting archaeological evaluations. Oneimportant example of this was the 1972-73 VA Sexcavation of the Winooski site (VT-CH-46) alongthe banks of the Winooski River. This ear ly VASwork was incorporated into the study of theceramics from the site that bec ame the Society’sfirst published monograph in 1980, which is still animportant reference work on the Middle Woodlandperiod (ca. A.D.1-1000). The Winooski siteexcavation, along with the 1979 John’s Bridge digin Swanton marked the Society’s last substantialinvolvement in site excavation, since major changesin the way regulatory archaeology was being con-ducted in the state was underway. Beginning in theearly 1980s field archaeology in Vermont quicklybecame the domain of professional CRM firms.

In response to this quickly changing archaeo-logical landscape, the 1983 VAS board of directorsrealigned the Society’s mission from a focus onfield excavation to one of education and publicoutreach (Popecki 1994). I n 1994, the VASundertook its most ambitious public outreach eventto date with the inception of Vermont ArchaeologyWeek; one week in May dedicated to archaeologicalevents and talks across Vermont. I t shifted to aweek in September in 1997, and in 2002 wasexpanded to the ent ire month of September,becoming what we are all familiar with as Vermont

The Journal of Vermont Archaeology Volume 11, 2010

16

Archaeology Month. In 1994, the first edition of TheJournal of Vermont Archae ology was published.Publication of the Journal became an annual eventin 2003 with Volume 4 under the e ditorship ofVictor Rolando.

As the VAS ente red the new millennium, theboard became acutely aware of frustration withinthe Society over the lack of field excavation and labopportunities for members, like those that initiallybrought the Society together in the 1960s. Severa lpracticalities underlay the inability of the Society todevelop field opportunities. In the past, the VA Shad been able to utilize field equipment owned bythe Anthropology department at UVM. In the 2000showever, there was no equipment available to theSociety and no funds to purchase any. Even if theSociety had the equipment for field excavations, arelated problem was storage space, since the VASwas (and still is) withou t a permanent office. Asecond major obstacle was finding a site in need ofexcavation that was e asily accessible, safe andsecure, had ple nty of nea rby parking and wasconvenient for weekend excavation. Finally, therewas no plan for long-term curation of any materialsrecovered from such a dig.

While the Board was grappling with theselogistic shortcomings, the V ermont Division forHistoric Preservation (VDHP) notified the Societyin 2007 t hat funding resulting from an A ct 250enforcement action had recently become availablefor fieldwork. The VDHP encouraged the Society todevelop and submit a pr oposal for archaeologicalwork that would use a portion of this funding. Inaddition, the VDHP suggested the Severence site(VT-CH-1002), in Colchester, Vermont, would bea fruitful locus for excavation. The University ofMaine at Farmington Archaeological ResearchCenter (UMF ARC) had originally conducted PhaseI and II studies of the Severence site in 2006 as partof the Act 250 permitting pr ocess and determinedthat it was not eligible for inclusion on the NationalRegister of Historic Places. Nevertheless, importantsupplementary information, such as dateableartifacts, might still be recovered from the sitebeyond the fieldwork required by Act 250. At the

same time, the recent establishment by the VDHP ofa statewide archaeological curation facility in SouthBurlington gave the VAS a plac e to co nduct labanalysis and properly store long term any materialrecovered by the excavation.

The Severence Site BackgroundOn weekends from June 28 to October 5, 2008,members of the VAS conducted a Phase III-levelexcavation of the pre contact Native Amer icanSeverence site in Colcheste r, Vermont (Figure 1).The goals of the Seve rence site excavations werethree-fold. First, to recover data and features thatwould date the site occupation and provide a betterunderstanding of how the occupants of the sitelived. The second goal was to provide fieldexcavation opportunities to the VAS membership,and the third g oal was to r aise the public’sawareness of Vermont’s cultural heritage and themission of the VAS. The VAS excavation at theSeverence site represented, in many ways, a returnto the stimuli behind the original formation of theSociety 40 years earlier, with its location inColchester, its ties to CRM, and the strong volunteerspirit of those involved.

The Severence site is one of thre e precontactNative American archaeological sites originallyidentified in September 2006 by UMF ARC as partof the c ultural resource review of a propose dhousing development (Brigham et al. 2009). Thesesites, listed as VT-CH-1000, VT-CH-1001, and VT-CH-1002 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory,are located on a parcel immediately north ofSeverence Road and east of VT Route 7 (Figure 2).All three sites we re identified by well-definedconcentrations of artifacts recovered throughsubsurface testing. At the Severence site, the smallsize and intensity of the subsurface artifact concen-trations suggested that historic plowing of thelandform did not seriously disturb the site andtherefore, intact features may still exist below theplowzone. Since no temporally diagnostic artifactswere recovered during the original Phase I and IIstudies conducted by UMF ARC, the recovery bythe VAS of intact features could provide dateable

Volunteering with the VAS: Excavations at the Severence Site

17

Figure 1 . The location of the Severence site in relation to other known archaeological sites in Colchester.


18

Figure 2. Known archaeological sites within 1.5 km of the Severence site (VT-CH-1002).


19

materials. Of the three sites, the Severence siteproduced the g reatest quantity of ar tifacts in thedensest concentration. This combined with itsconvenient location, friendly landowner relations,and planned destruction due to housing develop-ment made it an excellent candidate for Phase IIIexcavation by the VAS.

The Severence site is located on a north-southtrending knoll approximately 280 ft (85 meters)above sea level. The s ite overlooks an unna medtributary of the Indian Brook to the northeast, whichultimately drains into Malletts Bay. The Severencesite is also approximately 300 meters nor th ofSunderland Brook, which drains into the WinooskiRiver to the southwest. Ther efore, the Severencesite lies at the drainage divide between watershedsof the Winooski River and Malletts Ba y, andpossibly along an inland shortcut between these twodrainages. This may help explain the relatively highdensity of known precontact Native American sitesin the area.

In addition to sites VT-CH-1000, VT-CH-1001,and VT-CH-1002, numerous sites exist within thegeneral area. VT-CH-240 is the c losest to theSeverence site, located 200 meters to the south-eastat the headwaters of the same tributary of the IndianBrook as borders the Sever ence site. Numerousartifacts, including pottery fragments wererecovered, thus dating the site occ upation to thegeneral Woodland period (c a. 1000 B .C. – A.D.1600). About 500 meters due east, and associatedwith another unnamed tributary of Indian Brook,site VT-CH-611 was identified from the presence ofnumerous lithic flakes representing multiple stonesources, as well as bur ned bone and se eds fromwithin a bell-shaped feature. Associated with theSunderland Brook watershed to the south are at least19 precontact Native American within a 2 kmradius. The closest of these is site VT-CH-239,located 400 meters to the southwest and next to theheadwaters of a tributary of Sunderland Brook. SiteVT-CH-239 likely dates to t he Early Woodlandperiod (ca. 1000 – 100 B.C.) based on the recoveryof a projectile point similar in style to a Meadowoodpoint.

Table 1. Lithic artifact quantity by excavation unit.

Quad Unit NE NW SE SW TotalN123E98 46 7 10 10 73N123E99 8 13 1 7 29N123E100 9 5 5 8 27N124E98 11 10 18 16 55N124E99 18 25 25 25 93N124E100 36 41 28 32 137N125E94 9 2 15 4 30N125E96 8 16 17 14 55N125E98 4 8 9 13 34N125E99 20 15 12 24 71N125E100 16 24 21 33 94N126E97 2 0 6 6 14N126E98 3 0 6 2 11N126E99 8 5 8 13 34N126E100 10 8 22 11 51N127E100 -- -- 6 6 12

Total 820

VAS ExcavationsThe Phase III data recovery at the Severence siteexcavated 15½ square meters, consisting of fifteen1- by 1-meter and one 0.5- by 1-meter excavationunits centered on the positive Phase I test pitTransect 11 Test Pit 6 (Figure 3). The Phase IIIexcavations were aligned 15 east of magnetic northo

along a grid established during the Phase I s tudy,corresponding to Transect 11. Although the Phase IIexcavations were aligned by their northeast corners,the VAS excavations ut ilized the more commonsouthwest corner to delineate unit orientation. All50- by 50-cm Phase III excavation quadrants withineach unit, except two along the northern excavationborder, contained precontact Native Amer icanartifacts (Table 1). Test units were excavatedthrough a plowzone (Ap Horizon) that varied indepth from 25 t o 46 cm below the sur face. Plow-zone depth within each test unit correlated to itslocation on the knoll, with the thinnest plowz onelayer in the central and central-south test units.Plowzone thickness increased to the west and east,


20

Figure 3. The distribution of Phase I. II, and III archaeological testing of the Severence site.


21

Figure 4. A contour map showing the distribution of artifact quantity recovered during Phase III excavations at the Severence site.


22

likely the result of slope wash to either side of theridge top. Below the plowzone was a 10- to 25-cmthick B Horizon made up of olive brown silty loam.Excavation was terminated as soon as the C Horizonbecame visible below the B . All units were e xca-vated in arbitrary 10 cm levels within natural strata.All soils were scr eened through c-inch hardwarecloth and feature soils were collected intact for laterflotation and water screening through 1 mm mesh.

ArtifactsIn total, 82 7 artifacts were recovered during thePhase III excavation: 820 pieces of lithic debitageand 7 pieces of fire-cracked rock. Several pieces ofseverely fragmented food bone also were recovered,but they have not yet been studied. Of the lithicdebitage, the vast majority were made from chert,while several questionable artifacts of quartzite,shist, and sandstone also were recovered. Unlike themajority of sites in Vermont, not a single definitiveartifact made from quartzite or quartz was recoveredduring any point in the excavation of the Severencesite. In addition, no quartzite artifacts wererecovered from adjacent site VT-CH-1001. At siteVT-CH-1000 however, seven quartzite artifactswere recovered representing 26% of that site’schipped stone assemblage (Brigham et al. 2009) .The lack of quar tzite at the Seve rence site mayreflect stone procurement and exchange networksoriented towards the northern half of the state,where quartzite is not readily available. Quartzite inVermont is widespread along the Green Mountains,but the high quality quartzite typically found inVermont chipped stone assemblages has its northernextent in the Monkton region of Addison County.At the Severence site, the Phase I a nd Phase IIstudies by UMF ARC recovered 62 pieces of lithicdebitage, a retouched chert flake and a chert bifacefragment (Brigham et al. 2009). No temporallydiagnostic artifacts were ever recovered during anyphase of excavation, and we are therefore unable todate the oc cupation of the site. Du ring the VASexcavations, however, sufficient charcoal sampleswere obtained to carry out future C dating.14

A low density of lithic debitage covering a broad

area characterizes the Severence site, where artifactswere recovered from almost all excavation units.Two artifact concentrations also wer e identifiedalong the eastern edge of the s ite, the largestcentered on the positive Phase I test pit (TR11 TP6).The second, smaller artifact concentration is located1.5 meters southw est of the fir st one. These twoartifact concentrations also correspond to Feature 2and Feature 3, the only two definitive fe aturesidentified during the excavations. An isometriccontour map depicting the distribution of artifacts atthe site by quantity is presented in Figure 4. Thelithic debitage recovered from the water screeningand flotation of the feature soil was not included inthe contour maps.

At least two ty pes of siliceous material we reidentified in the chipped stone assemblage:Hathaway chert and Mt. Jasper rhyolite. Hathawaychert, the more common material, originates from aknown quarry source located immediately north ofSt. Albans Bay in Franklin County. The Hathawaychert artifacts recovered ranged in color from lightto dark grey, often with small black radiolariathroughout (Figure 5). Light to dark grey coloringwas often seen on a single artifact, and may result,to some deg ree, from we athering. In addition, ablack variety with and without the black radiolariawas identified, but this was much less common. Theother principal material type recovered, based onvisual characteristics, appears to be Mt J asperrhyolite from the Berlin, New Hampshire, area. Thisvariety was tan to very light brown/yellow in color,similar to butterscotch, and very fine-grained(Figure 6). Mt. Jasper rhyolite is most commonlyfound in the Late Paleoindian period (ca. 8000-7000B.C.) in Vermont, although it has been found duringother periods as well. At the Severence site, at least23% (n=187) of t he assemblage consists of Mt.Jasper rhyolite. Some of the light yellow/tanmaterial also may come f rom this source. Flaketypes and metrics by color are presented in Table 2.

Reduction StagesStone tool production is a reductive process. That is,in order to form a stone tool from a piece of raw


23

Figure 5. Visual lithic artifact types recovered. From left to right: light grey, dark grey,light yellow/tan, light brown/yellow, black.

Figure 6. Artifact sample of Mt. Jasper rhyolite.


24

Table 2. Lithic artifact quantity by color and type

Color Light Light

Light Dark Yellow/ Brown/Artifact Type Grey Grey Tan Yellow Black TotalBifacial Reduction Unidentified Flake with platform 76 85 14 50 30 255 Unidentified Flake without platform 131 118 17 95 28 389 Notching flake 0 0 0 1 0 1 Shatter 26 41 4 16 8 95 Shaping Flake 2 2 0 0 0 4 Thinning Flake 3 1 0 0 0 4 Bifacial Reduction Flake 9 4 1 15 0 29 Sharpening Flake 9 7 0 10 5 31Bipolar Reduction Sheared Flake 5 2 0 0 1 8 Bipolar Flake 0 2 0 0 0 2Formal Tool Biface 0 2 0 0 0 2 Total 261 264 36 187 72 820

material, flakes are removed until the desired formis achieved. Therefore, it is expected that flake sizewill decrease through the re duction sequence, aswill the amount of cortex or patina on each flake. Itis also expected that the amount of dorsa l andplatform scarring on those flakes will increasethrough the reduction sequence. Many lithicartifacts also exhibit other diagnostic attributes thatwere used in c haracterizing the lithic assembl age.Since lithic flakes are typically extremely sharp,they themselves can be used as a quick, expedienttool and may be th e desired object rather than amore formal bifacial tool. For this reason, we alsoinvestigated edge wear.

For this analy sis, flakes were categorized aseither flakes with platforms or f lakes withoutplatforms (a.k.a. flake fragments). If a flake with aplatform could be more accurately identified due toseveral diagnostic characteristics, such as size,platform angle, platform lip, and g eneral flakemorphology, then it was de signated as a shapingflake, a thinning/reduction flake, a bifacial reduction

flake, or a sharpening flake. Shaping flakes are produced in the earliest

stages of pr eform shaping. As a re sult, shapingflakes tend to be on the lar ge end of the spectrumand are not expected to exhibit complex negativescarring (0-2 scars) on either their dorsal face or ontheir platform, since few flakes w ill have bee nremoved before them (Magne 1985: figure 14).Thinning/reduction flakes are produced during thethinning of the preform that is, duri ng the ac t ofremoving material from the center of each face. Asa result, thinning/reduction flakes tend to berelatively narrow and long, with a distinct curve inlateral profile. It is expected that they will exhibitmoderate negative scarring (1-3 scars) on theirdorsal face and platform. The bifa cial reductionflake is characterized by a pronounced lip on theventral face at the ba se of an often, multifacetedplatform (Crabtree 1982:44; Kooyman 2000:170).The platform itself represents a small portion of theopposite face from which the flake was removed. Asa result, it reflects the removal of a flake from a very


25

acute edge, such as the edge of a biface. This type offlake tends to be removed at the same time or afterbiface thinning has occurred, but before edgesharpening has been init iated. Finally, sharpeningflakes are produced during the final edge shaping ofthe biface and sharpening flakes will therefore be onthe smaller end of the size spectrum. Platformslikely will be extremely small due to pressureremoval. Since sharpening flakes are produced at alate stage in the production of the biface, they areexpected to exhibit complex negative scarring (3+scars) on the dorsal face and platform. As illustratedin Table 2, flakes with and without platformsrepresented the majorit y of ar tifacts recoveredduring the VAS excavatio ns. Of the a rtifacts thatcould be better assigned to specific reduction stages,sharpening flakes and bifacial reduction flakes weremore common than thinnin g/reduction flakes orshaping flakes.

In addition to bifacial reduction technology,1.2% of the chipped stone assemblage (n=10) wasthe result of bipolar reduction. Unlike the moreformalized bifacial reduction, which requires acertain degree of spec ialized knowledge, bipolarreduction is an expedient technology that does notrequire specialized knowledge. As a result, anyonewith two or more stone s can c reate sharp e dgedartifacts using bipolar reduction techniques (Hayden1980; Shott 1989, 1999). Two types of distinctivebipolar artifacts were recognized: sheared flakes andbipolar flakes.

I adopt the term “sheared flaked” from Crabtree(1982:5) who described the she aring effect on apebble by the ra diating force caused by directpercussion in bipolar reduction. Sheared flakes aretriangular in cross section and have three faces,usually two discernable ventral faces and one dorsal.Although all faces of a sheared flake lack negativescarring or any evidence of the percussion force thatremoved them from a core, such as bulbar scarringor ripple marks, a dorsal face can often be identifiedfrom cortex or remnant patina. The morphology ofa sheared flake best fits the descr iption Crabtree(1982:5) provides for bipolar debitage as resembling“segments of an orange.” Crushed platforms ar e

often identifiable on opposite ends, although it isnot uncommon for one end to be completelyobliterated. One sheared flake in the assemblagewas used as an infor mal tool, as it ex hibitedoverlapping microflakes along one edge, suggestiveof cutting actions.

Bipolar flakes have evidenc e of c rushing atproximal and distal ends displ aying evidence ofshearing and/or rippling on their ventral faces.Evidence for bidirectional flake scarring on theirdorsal faces also is often prese nt. None of thebipolar flakes recovered exhibited edge wear.

Edge WearHow the artifacts may have been used wasinvestigated through edge wear analysis. That is,certain use activities leave distinctive markings onthe edges and faces of tools and debitage. Allartifacts were visually analyzed under 10Xmagnification with a hand lens. In total, 5% (n=40)of all chipped stone artifacts showed some form ofuse wear on their edges. However, in o rder toinvestigate use we ar in the c hipped stoneassemblage, we must measure the proportion ofuseable flakes that exhibit use wear, rather than allflakes recovered. In other wor ds, we would notexpect the smallest and lightest, thus fragile, flakesto be used as informal tools, therefore we mustremove those flakes from the equation. All debitage,regardless of size and weight was analyzed for usewear. However, of the 40 artifacts that exhibit usewear all are at least 2 mm in thickness. In addition,no flakes lighter than 0.1 gram exhibited use wear.Therefore, I removed all flakes less than 2 mm inthickness and lighter than 0.1 grams (n=517) fromthe sampling universe, a nd was lef t with 303artifacts that may have been used informa lly astools. Of these, 13% of a ll useable chipped stoneartifacts exhibited some form of use wear.

In terms of use w ear events, six artifacts hadmultiple use wear patterns, therefore a total of 46use events are represented on the 40 a rtifacts thathave use wear. Regarding the types of activities forwhich these informal tools were used, 26 (thus 56%of all artifacts with use wear) were marked by small,


26

overlapping microflakes along the artifact edge(Figure 7a). Use we ar experiments I have c on-ducted, and that have been conducted by others (e.g.Clark 1988) suggest that this ty pe of use wearresults from a forward and back cutting motion onmoderately hard surfaces, such as wood or bone.The next most common use wear type is “contin-uous slicing,” marked by continuous small lunatenicks taken out of the artifact edge (Figure 7b).Continuous slicing comprises 23% (n=6) of all usewear identified. It also results from a cutting motionon soft to medi um hard surfaces. Another type ofuse wear attributed to cutting actions that results inrounded and dull edges (Figure 7c), was identifiedon 9% (n=4) of all artif acts exhibiting use wear.Overlapping, truncated edge flaking, where twolayers of edge flakes are present, is ty pical ofscraping actions and comprised 9% (n=4) of all usewear (Figure 7d).

In general, the use of debitage as informal toolswas not a major event at the Severence site. Slicingactivities on soft to moderately hard items appear tohave comprised the majority of use activities, withsome scraping also occurring. Considering that 87%of all usea ble chipped stone artifacts display novisible use wear, either material processing was nota major activity at the site, use wear was not visibleunder 10X magnification, or it was c arried out onsoft materials that do not leave easily detectabletraces. Nonetheless, the artifact assemblage stronglypoints to a temporary encampment where bifacepreforms were reduced and finished toolsrejuvenated.

Formal ToolsThree biface fragments were recovered from allphases of archaeological study of the Severence site.One fragment was recovered during the Phase IItesting by UMF ARC and is d iscussed elsewhere(Brigham et al. 2009), a nd two fra gments wererecovered during the Phase III excavations (PN1012-01 and PN 107-01). All fragments were of thesame dark grey Hathaway chert and all wereapproximately the same size (Figure 8). Both bifacefragments recovered by the VAS exhibited edge

wear and all three biface fragments recovered at thesite came from the sa me eastern edge of the site,corresponding to the eastern artifact concentration.

FeaturesDuring the VAS excavations, eight fe atures wereinitially identified and delineated. After additionalexcavation in and around the delineated features andlater lab analysis of the material recovered, allexcept two wer e determined not to be cul turalfeatures. Features 2 and 3 r epresent possible firehearth remains located in the center of the area withthe greatest concentration of a rtifacts at the site.Both features were identified in Unit N124 E100.All feature soil was floa ted, water screened, andsorted.

Feature 2Feature 2 was located in the western half of the unitand comprised a 40- by 20-cm, semi-circular stain9 cm in depth that extended into the adjoining 1- by1-meter Unit N124 E99. Howe ver, the portion ofUnit N124 E99 that would have contained thewestern portion of Feature 2 had been removed bythe positive Phase I test pit TR11 TP 7 before theVAS excavations. Feature 2 contained small char-coal flecks, lithic debitage, and fire-cracked rock.

Feature 3Feature 3 was located in the nor theast quadrant ofUnit N124 E100 comprising an oblong stain 32 by25 cm in size and 5 cm deep, extending north intoUnit N125 E100 (Figure 9). This feature stain wasinfused with small and medium sized charcoalflecks and contained fire-cracked rock. It also con-tained lithic debitage, but in the same concentrationas from the rest of the test pit.

VAS Volunteering and Public OutreachIn total, 43 volunteers spent over 23 days conduct-ing the Phase III field excavations at the Severencesite. Of the volunteers, 6 were VAS board membersand 37 we re general VAS members and non-members. Altogether 968 volunteer hours wer espent on the dig, 504 of these by non-board mem-


27

Figure 7. Four principal types of edge wear observed: (a) overlapping, (b) lunate, (c) dull and rounded, and(d) truncated.

bers. Non-board member volunteer time ra ngedfrom 2 hours per person to 128 hours by VAS lifemember Fred Royce, who was there almost everyday the VAS was excavating. Regarding laboratoryvolunteer time, 9 boar d and non-boa rd membersspent 117 hours over 17 days of cleaning, catalog-ing, and analyzing the artifacts at the SouthBurlington curation facility.

The Severence dig also generated modestattention from the local media. The dig was picked

up by the Burlington Free Press who published afull page article on it in the Community section onSeptember 1, 2008, while NECN TV ne ws inter-viewed the crew for a story broadcast later that sameday. The Vermont Cynic, the UVM student news-paper, and The Colchester Sun also reported on thedig. In general, however, the high profile location ofthe dig along Severence Road in Colchester, wherethe VAS banner was displayed near the entrance tothe project parcel, was responsible for the highest


28

a

b

Figure 8. Two biface fragments recovered from the Severence site. Both faces of each fragment are shown:(a) PN 1012-01 from Unit N123 E99 and (b) PN 107-01 from Unit N123 E99.


29

Figure 9. Profile of Feature 3 from the northeast 50 by 50 cm quad of Unit N124 E100.


30

number of dr op-in visitors. Bec ause the dig w asconducted during the summer months, we were notable to coordinate local school visits as originallyplanned.

ConclusionThe Severence site has much in common with manyof the known archaeological sites along the IndianBrook and Sunderla nd Brook drainages. Therelatively dense, yet spatially circumscribed lithicscatter of late stage bifacial tool debitage, stronglysuggestive of a short-term encampment, is not un-common for landforms adjacent to the small heads-of-draw of the many unnamed tributaries throughoutthe Lake Champlain lowlands. While historic periodaccounts and archaeological data indicate thathorticulture was widely practiced by large semi-permanent groups of Native Americans along theshores of Lake Champlain during the ce nturiesimmediately preceding the arrival of Europeans, itis the small hunting or fishing camp or bivouac thatbest characterizes the types of habitation inVermont’s ancient past. Although we have yet toabsolutely date the occupation of the Severence site,the relatively large proportion of the lithicassemblage made from Mt. Jasper rhyolite, suggeststhat it may date to the Late Paleoindian period.

The excavation of the Severence site providedmembers of the VAS with the opportunity to gettheir hands dirty and dig into Vermont’s anc ientpast, while also training a series of volunteers in themethods of ex cavation and lab ana lysis. TheSeverence site excavations also provided the VASwith the wher ewithal for future a rchaeologicalinvestigations anywhere in the state. We hope thismarks the beginning of a regular program of fieldexcavation and another avenue for cooperation andunderstanding between the Society and the publicregarding Vermont’s cultural resources.

References

Brigham, Michael, Robert N. Bartone, Ellie R.Cowie2009 Archaeological Phase I Survey and Phase IITesting at Three Newly Identified Native AmericanSites, VT-CH-1000, VT- CH-1001, and VT-CH-1002, within the Severe nce Residential Develop-ment Project, Colchester, Chittenden County,Vermont. University of Maine a t FarmingtonArchaeological Research Center.

Clark, John E., 1988 The Lithic Artifacts of La Libertad, Chiapas,Mexico: An Economic Perspective. Papers of theNew World Archaeological Foundation No. 52.Brigham Young University, Provo.

Crabtree, Don E.,1982. An Introduction to Flintw orking, SecondEdition. Idaho Museum of Natural History,Pocatello.

Hayden, Brian1980 Confusion in the Bipolar W orld: DashedPebbles and Splintered Piece s. Lithic Technology9(1):2-7.

Kooyman, Brian P. 2000 Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeo-logical Sites University of New Mexico Press.

Magne, Martin P.1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Tech-nologies of Central and Southern Interior BritishColumbia. Mercury Series Archaeological Survey ofCanada Paper No. 133. National Museum of Man,Ottawa.


31/32 (blank)

Morrissey, Brenda1969 Vermont Archaeological Society NewsletterNo. 1 (February)

Popecki, Joseph T.1994 “To Stimulate the Study of Archaeology...”:The Vermont Archaeological Society, 1968-1993.The Journal of Vermont Archaeology (1):1-12.

Shott, Michael J.1999 On Bipolar Reduction and Splintered Pieces.North American Archaeologist 20(3):217-238.

1989 Bipolar Industries: Ethnographic Evidenceand Archaeological Implications. North AmericanArchaeologist 10(1):1-24.

_____

Charles Knight is the As sistant Director of theUniversity of Ve rmont Consulting ArchaeologyProgram. He received his Ph.D. in Anthropologyfrom the University of P ittsburgh. In addition toworking in Vermont, he is conducting research onthe production, distribution, and consumption ofobsidian stone tools in Veracruz, Mexico, and in theQuijos Valley of Ecuador.

Documents

Volunteering with The Vermont Archaeological Society: …vtarchaeology.org/wp-content/uploads/v11_ch2_reduced.pdf · 2018. 9. 8. · archaeology. Since professional Cultural Resource