Deeply Buried Pleistocene Landscapes and the Search for Paleoindian Sites in the Northeast

BULLETIN OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CONNECTICUT NUMBER 83 2021 SARAH P. SPORTMAN, EDITOR THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CONNECTICUT President: Secretary & LHAC Rep: Treasurer & ESAF Rep: Bulletin Editor: Membership & Newsletter Editor: Directors at Large: Web Master: FOSA President: David E. Leslie, Ph.D. (AHS/PAST) Paul Wegner (IAIS) Ernie Wiegand II (NCC) Sarah P. Sportman, Ph.D. (OSA) Lee West (SBC) Lucianne Lavin, Ph.D. (IAIS), Dawn Brown (HPI), Nicholas F. Bellanoni, Ph.D. State Archaeologist, Emeritus), William Farley, Ph.D. (SCSU), Elic Weitzel (UCONN) Jeff Zaino Scott Brady Connecticut State Archaeologist: Sarah P. Sportman, Ph.D., Connecticut Museum of Natural History, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. The Bulletin is published by the Archaeological Society of Connecticut, Inc. It publishes original papers primarily on the archaeology, ethnohistory, and related topics of Southern New England and Long Island Sound. Articles, reports, comments, letters, and book reviews should be submitted electronically. Manuscripts and references should be submitted in American Antiquity style (see https://www.saa.org/publications/american-antiquity to view or download the style guide). Figures and photographs should be at least 300 dpi. Captions should be submitted in a separate list and correlated to figures and photographs. The number of illustrations accepted will depend on relevance. If illustrations or parts of texts have been previously published, or are not original, full acknowledgement of permission must be included. All measurements must be reported in the metric system. When sites have been excavated using the English system, measurements may be reported in both systems. In reporting radiocarbon dates, give the age, data, and laboratory number, e.g., 11,950+/- years BP, 10,000 B.C. (Y-756). The date alone can be used in subsequent citations. Use the chemical symbol, 14C. This format is used to report dates in Radiocarbon, the official journal for publication or original date lists. Authors must assign the copyright for their articles to the Society. All graphic submissions for accepted articles will be retained for any future printing. Please send all manuscripts to the Editor, Sarah P. Sportman, at sarah.sportman@uconn.edu. Requests concerning membership, missed issues, and back issues, should be directed to Lee West, Membership Coordinator and Newsletter Editor (lfwest@sbcglobal.net). Cover Photo: Excavation of buried steps going down into the cellar of the Peters House Site, Hebron, Connecticut (Connecticut Office of State Archaeology 2021). 1 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 BULLETIN OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CONNECTICUT NUMBER 83 2021 SARAH P. SPORTMAN, Ph.D., Editor CONTENTS Editor’s Introduction SARAH P. SPORTMAN ................................................................................................................................ 3 . In Remembrance: Daniel Cruson NICHOLAS F. BELLANTONI and CYNTHIA REDMAN ...................................................................... 5 .5 In Remembrance: Bruce Greene NICHOLAS F. BELLANTONI ..................................................................................................................... 7 .7 In Search of Graves: Looking Back in Time with Ground-Penetrating Radar DEBORAH SURABIAN, JAMES DOOLITTLE, and NICHOLAS F. BELLANTONI ....................... 9 .9 Bio-Archaeological Analysis of Bison Brook Farms Cemetery in North Stonington, Connecticut REBECCA KRAUS ......................................................................................................................................29 .28 Archaeological and Historical Research at the Cesar and Sim Peters House Site (67-7), Hebron, Connecticut JOHN BARON and SARAH P. SPORTMAN ..........................................................................................45 .43 A Re-analysis of the Nature Conservancy Site: Social Connections in Connecticut During the Middle Woodland Period the EMMA WINK and DAVID E. LESLIE.....................................................................................................73 .71 Deeply Buried Pleistocene Landscapes and the Search for Paleoindian Sites in the Northeast DAVID E. LESLIE, ZACHARY L.F. SINGER, WILLIAM B. OUIMET, and PETER A. LEACH ...87 84 Woodworking: The Hidden Aspect of Archaeology MARY GAGE .............................................................................................................................................101 98 Contributors ................................................................................................................................................117 .113 12 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 DEEPLY BURIED PLEISTOCENE LANDSCAPES AND THE SEARCH FOR PALEOINDIAN SITES IN THE NORTHEAST David E. Leslie Zachary L.F. Singer William B. Ouimet, and Peter A. Leach Abstract The discovery of two deeply alluvially buried Paleoindian sites in Southern New England within the last decade, at the Brian D. Jones Site in central Connecticut, and the Sands of the Blackstone Site in southeastern Massachusetts, necessitates a shift in the way archaeologists model and locate Paleoindian sites within the region. Earlier work at the Templeton Site in northwestern Connecticut, the ShawneeMinisink Site in eastern Pennsylvania, and the Sharrow Site in central Maine indicated the potential of deeply buried and preserved alluvial landforms to contain stratified archaeological sites with Paleoindian components. Predictive models overlook these depositional settings and restrict ongoing efforts to identify Terminal Pleistocene sites. Here, we present a series of developing geophysical, geomorphological, and geochemical methods for assessing deeply buried Pleistocene sediments and potential Paleoindian-related deposits. While these methods do not offer a panacea technique to identify all deeply buried Paleoindian sites, they do provide a first step in assessing the similarities of known sites in the region, and key geomorphological attributes shared by all sites. INTRODUCTION Archaeological work in southern New England has recently identified deeply buried Terminal Pleistocene archaeological sites preserved between three and six feet below the ground surface. Here we discuss three buried Paleoindian components, including the Brian D. Jones Site in Avon, Connecticut, the Templeton Site in Washington, Connecticut, and the Sands of the Blackstone Site along the Blackstone River in southeastern Massachusetts. The Brian D. Jones Site was identified in 2019 and contains evidence of separate, stratified Early, Middle, and Late Paleoindian components and Early Archaic occupations, with the earliest cultural feature radiocarbon dated to 10,520 ± 30 uncalibrated (Uncal) years before present (BP) (Leslie et al. 2020; Leslie and Ouimet 2021). The Middle Paleoindian period Templeton Site was identified over 40 years ago and has recently been reinvestigated using modern excavation techniques, expanding on the previous work (see Figure 1). A small basin-shaped cultural feature from the Paleoindian occupation was recently radiocarbon dated to 10,060 ± 30 Uncal BP (parenchymous tissue: Beta #538038) and the site preserves Late Archaic through Woodland period occupations stratified above the Paleoindian layer (Moeller 1980; Singer 2017). The Sands of the Blackstone Site was identified in 2010 and underwent a partial excavation prior to its protection and preservation. Initial excavation resulted in the discovery of diagnostic Paleoindian technology consistent with an Early or Middle Paleoindian occupation, and a series of stratigraphic radiocarbon dates documented the Pleistocene alluvial formation at the site (Leveillee 2016). Until recently, Templeton was one of a few examples of deeply buried Paleoindian sites in the greater Northeast. The only other examples were the Early Paleoindian Shawnee-Minisink site along the Delaware River in Pennsylvania (McNett 1985; Gingerich 2013) and the Sharrow Site along the Piscataquis River in Central Maine (Petersen 1991), the latter of which was deeply buried and contained alluvial layers dating to the Late Paleoindian Period, but only artifacts from the Early Archaic Period. The last decade has seen two additional Paleoindian sites discovered adjacent to and buried by rivers in southern New England: the Brian D. Jones and the Sands of the 87 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 Blackstone sites. These discoveries necessitate a shift in the way archaeologists model, predict, and discover archaeological sites in the region. Here, we present a series of developing methods, with examples from two of these sites and other active research projects across the region, as a suite of techniques for locating and analyzing deeply buried Pleistocene alluvial landscapes in the region. These techniques include high-resolution investigation of the geomorphology of a site area, paired with non-invasive remote sensing techniques and systematic soil coring and associated geochemical analyses. Figure 1: Recent excavations at the Templeton Site; A) Deep alluvial stratigraphy at site, with Paleoindian layer exposed at 106 cm below surface, with a snapped Normanskill chert fluted preform point base (circle) and tip (square) shown in situ; B) Closeup of in situ snapped fluted point preform base (circle) and tip (square); C) Dorsal, ventral, and side photographs of snapped fluted point preform. REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES Nicoulin’s (2014) work demonstrated that bedrock “knick points” along the Housatonic and Farmington River courses control river incision up-river from the knick point. Nicoulin investigated knick points at Talcott Notch along the Farmington and Great Falls on the Housatonic. She concluded that these knick points have stabilized the rivers upstream from these inflection points, likely following pro-glacial lake dam release circa 16,000 – 15,500 years ago (calendar 88 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 years). These stable river sections build landforms over time that include raised levees or terraces, providing a feedback loop for both preservation of the landform as well as stability for animal and human occupants. Similar knick points exist along the rivers with Paleoindian sites discussed herein, including one along the Blackstone River in Rhode Island at Woonsocket Falls, now the site of a flood control dam. In western Connecticut, directly downstream from the Templeton Site on the Shepaug River, a knick point at the “clam shell” formation of the river indicates that the Shephaug is hung up on bedrock within the valley. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) analyses provide a powerful method for identifying these buried landscape features, and while not widely available at a high-resolution scale when Nicoulin investigated the Farmington and Housatonic drainages, they now provide a direct test of these knick point mechanisms. The discovery of the Brian D. Jones site, directly upstream of Talcott Notch, also provides a direct test and verification of Nicoulin’s (2014) work. In Figure 2, the raised elevation profiles of buried Paleoindian sites are clear and visible in LiDAR, providing a tantalizing initial remote sensing application to investigate sites or project areas adjacent to rivers. Figure 2: Bare earth hillshade lidar derived maps of relevant deeply buried Pleistocene sites with river terraces outlined in black; A) Templeton Site, terraces is preserved on both sides of tributary stream; B) Brian D. Jones Site, two levees are present, one on the banks of the Farmington River, the other (Pleistocene) set back from the river; C) Sharrow Site, several terraces are preserved along both sides of the riverbank, and the site is directly downstream of the bridge crossing; D) Shawnee-Minisink Site, terraces is faint, Lidar coverage in Pennsylvania is not as high-resolution as New England, but it is clearly shown. All sites are preserved at the confluence of significant streams and the main body of a river, likely because of the debris/alluvial fan method suggested by Patton (1978). 89 86 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 Figure 2 displays buried Paleoindian sites along the Farmington and Shepaug rivers in Connecticut (Brian D. Jones and Templeton), the Delaware River in Pennsylvania (ShawneeMinisink), and an Early Archaic site along the Piscataquis River in Maine (Sharrow). While each of these terraces have an architecture that looks slightly different and the elevation profiles are dissimilar, the terraces all formed adjacent to, but downstream of a confluence of a tributary stream and the larger river. However, in the case of Shawnee-Minisink the archaeological site is just upstream of this confluence. Patton (1978) observed this configuration at the Templeton Site and described the debris fan deposition (during flow or flood events) from the small tributary as essential in preserving and burying the buried Paleoindian deposits at the site. The debris flow/fan acts as a shield during flood events by helping to prevent erosion of the built terrace and by facilitating the deposition of fine-grained sediment on the downstream side of the alluvial fan. When a bare-earth LiDAR hillshade is not available, a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) of an area can be created using digital photogrammetry and an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV or drone) if a site or area has open tree cover. Photographs must be collected with at least 40% overlap in the field of view of the camera, ideally taken at 90 degrees (straight down) below the UAV. Photographs can then be stitched together into an orthomosaic and DEM, using Agisoft Metashape or another drone-based aerial image processor. DEMs can be converted into bare-earth hillshade maps with comparable, if not higher, resolution when compared with LiDAR mapping. An example of this type of photogrammetry is shown in Figure 3 with the Templeton Site. This bare earth hillshade provides comparable, and in some cases increased, accuracy when assessing landforms as in the Templeton example. Detailed instructions for creating these maps were recorded by Kršák et al. (2016), or by searching for Agisoft Metashape drone imagery tutorials online. Following LiDAR survey, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey can be conducted to further investigate site and alluvial depositional integrity. A Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. (GSSI) UtilityScan GPR system with a 350 MHz HyperStacking antenna can be used to collect GPR transect data. In most cases, a mid-frequency antenna (350MHz to 400MHz) offers an ideal combination of depth penetration and resolution. In deeply stratified (>3-4m) sites a lower frequency antenna (200MHz) would provide improved depth penetration. The antenna and UtilityScan are mounted on a custom-built GSSI survey cart and acquire encoder-triggered collection of 50 traces per meter (1 reading every 2cm or 0.8 in). GPR is an active, non-invasive geophysical method that records contrasts in the dielectric properties of subsurface materials (Heimmer and De Vore 1995; Clark 2001; Bristow and Jol 2003; Conyers 2004; Daniels 2004). A pulse of transmitted electromagnetic energy emitted from the GPR antenna is reflected or absorbed by such contrasts and the resulting reflections are recorded to produce a vertical profile. The majority of reflections are generated at interfaces between materials of differing relative dielectric permittivity; that is, at the boundary between different stratigraphic layers, where changes in velocity occur. A two-dimensional GPR profile is a representation of vertical and horizontal stratigraphy consisting of individual traces, resulting from a single pulse of energy and the resulting reflections at a given location, that are stitched together to produce an image of dielectric contrasts. In this sense, GPR is not providing a stratigraphic profile; rather, it is generating a representation of local dielectric contrasts which provides a proxy for subsurface stratigraphic changes 90 87 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 Figure 3: High-resolution bare earth hillshade of Templeton Site location, created using photogrammetry and UAV photography. Terraces is clearly visible in black rectangle. To visualize the stratigraphy of a landform in three dimensions, GPR data are collected in longitudinal transects that are parallel and perpendicular to the terrace or dominant geomorphic structure. In our field research all GPR profiles were interpreted and analyzed using GSSI RADAN software using industry-standard techniques (i.e. Conyers 2004; Leach 2019). These techniques include the following RADAN software adjustments to the raw data collected in the field: Time Zero (Position Correction), Range Gain, Background Removal, Finite Impulse Response (FIR) and Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) Filters, Migration, as well as two-dimensional exploratory data analysis. Each of these techniques are described in more detail below. Time Zero is a position correction of the actual ground surface relative to the radar pulse that is transmitted from the antenna, which is measured in nanoseconds. For the UtilityScan, the position correction is generally very small, and on the order of 1-3 nanoseconds. Range Gain is a critical analytical technique because it allows the user to correct for amplitude losses that occur exponentially with increasing depth penetration. As the signal travels farther from the antenna, the signal is weaker, and vice versa. To compensate for this, and to properly interpret the entire target depth for the GPR analysis, the signal amplitudes must be normalized with an exponential Range Gain. Background Removal suppresses and eliminates horizontal banding that is derived from continuous external electromagnetic interference. FIR and IIR processes are generally applied as custom bandpass filters that remove or downplay spurious spectral (frequency-related) 91 88 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 noise. Migration removes distortion from the “tails” of hyperbolic reflectors and simultaneously calibrates soil dielectric and the vertical depth scale. All GPR transects are also explored in twodimensions in their raw and post-processed formats. These data are then compared and contrasted with other two-dimensional geomorphic landform features and their relation to the landscape and the river or tributary stream. At the Brian D. Jones site in Avon, the dipping levee is clearly visible in GPR, as are the complicated proglacial lacustrine sediments that underly the alluvial deposition (Figure 4). At Templeton, the GPR transect displays an elevated river terrace, but with more complex glaciofluvial-lacustrine deposits that underly the site (Figure 5). While the underlying sediments and fluvially deposited sediments differ at both of these sites, the architecture of the terraces are similar enough to be compared on the GPR profiles in Figures 4 and 5. This similarity provides a possible signature of these deeply buried landforms when GPR transects are collected perpendicular to the river. GPR is highly effective at identifying geomorphic landform features at a site. At the Brian D. Jones site GPR was useful for visualizing the landform itself. Figure 6 displays a “threedimensional” grid of the site area, viewed in plan-view, at approximately 1.5 meters below the original ground surface. The plan-view clearly shows the later Holocene period sediments in black, and the Pleistocene alluvial sediments in white. The result is a high accuracy representation of the edge of the levee/river terrace as it would have appeared when Paleoindians occupied the site. Also, in Figure 6 we show clear evidence for a buried paleo-channel of Thompson Brook, much farther north than the modern channel. This currently undated paleo-channel provides direct evidence for site preservation from an alluvial fan shield that Patton (1978) postulates at Templeton, although the modern Thompson Brook displays a more gradual slope and would not have been a debris fan, as at Templeton. 92 89 ASC Bulletin 83 93 90 Figure 4: Elevation profile (top) of Brian D. Jones site (indicated by star), with vibracoring locations indicated in black and labeled. GPR (labeled) inset displays complicated alluvial stratigraphy, as well as Pleistocene river terrace and archaeological site (black square). Photographs (bottom right) display vibracore collection of PPI-8 (left) within active excavation area and PPI-1 (right) on the crest of the levee. 2021 ASC Bulletin 83 94 91 Figure 5: Focus stacked image of vibracore TVC-2 (left) collected from the Templeton Site, with preliminary unit designations and AMS radiocarbon dating (uncalibrated) of sedimentary layers indicated. Elevation profile (top right) indicates landform position of vibracore collection, and GPR transect (bottom right) displays alluvial stratigraphy at site. 2021 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 Figure 6: Bare earth hillshade Lidar map of Brian D. Jones Site area (bottom left) with modern course of Thompson Brook displayed, and insets to three-dimensional plan-view of Pleistocene levee (bottom right, figure is rotated 90 degrees to the left) and paleo-channel of Thompson Brook (top, cross-section is rotated 90 degrees to the right, direction of GPR collection is indicated on hillshade). SOIL CORING Remote sensing techniques can be paired effectively with terrestrial “vibracoring,” an efficient way to core a fluvial terrace (Figures 4, 5, and 7). An electric or gas-powered vibrating head from a concrete mixer is attached to vibrate and drive a core barrel into surface soil and sediments beneath. While this method is generally used in underwater or saturated settings such as wetlands, swamps, and marshes, it can also be used terrestrially after manually saturating the core collection area (Lanesky et al. 1979). Vibracoring reduces frictional and compressive disturbances to sediments and provides continuous sample recovery of site stratigraphy. This method permits the collection of cores with a small group of people, providing a low-tech, but high-reward method for collecting and describing surficial and deeply buried sedimentary sequences. 95 92 ASC Bulletin 83 96 93 Figure 7: PPI-1 focus stacked image of core (collected at crest of the levee), with LOI, Grain Size, pXRF (Pb, K, Fe, and Ti), and ICP-MS (Cu, Zn, Sr, and Zr) results displayed to the right. Note the elevation in LOI and small grain size (<63 μm) percentages within Unit 3, as well as the elevations in potassium in Unit 3 and zirconium in Unit 2. These elevations are consistent with the Paleoindian occupations at the site, the increased LOI may indicate a paleosol development, and the increase in zirconium may indicate increased weathering of soils and thus landform stability. Also note the high levels of lead, copper, and zinc in the upper layers, indicative of industrial activity along the Farmington River 2021 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 General stratigraphic analyses of core sediments are critical to understanding the soil formation and taphonomic processes at a potential buried Pleistocene archaeological site. Following core extraction, the cores are split perpendicular to the direction of coring using metal snips and separated into two equal halves. Piano wire is then used to smooth the sediment profile. Both halves of the cores are cleaned; one is retained for archival purposes, the other is photographed using a Macroscopic Solutions CORE system. Macropod CORE is an automated system that stabilizes an individual core, allowing focus stacking of individual images, which results in a single panoramic high-resolution digital record of each core segment (Figures 5 and 7). Cores are then described using Munsell and stratigraphic unit descriptions. Soils are comprised of mineral components, organic or humic matter, organisms, air and water. Soils vary due to a combination of these factors, but from a geological and archaeological perspective, the variance in mineral components is generally the most important characteristic described during macroscopic stratigraphic analyses. Following core descriptions, core sediment samples can be analyzed using the following suite of techniques: accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating, portable x-ray fluorescence (pXRF), loss on ignition (LOI), grain size, and inductively coupled mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). These techniques provide a high-resolution way to determine the age and provenience of sediments. LOI is particularly useful when characterizing past environments. At the Brian D. Jones Site, elevated organic content in PPI-1 (Figure 4) is directly associated with the occupation of the site during the Paleoindian time period and indicates stability of the landform and the development of a paleosol (Figure 7). Grain size analysis provides useful information about the sediment load and deposition at a site, as with PPI-1, where increases in small grain sizes (<63 microns [μm]) in the sediment profile are indicative of increased alluviation from very fine-grained sediments (Figure 7). As recent work at the Templeton Site demonstrates (Figure 5), AMS profiles of cores provide a useful map of Pleistocene and Holocene transitionary sediments that can be correlated with archaeological sites on these landforms. The AMS dating at Templeton also documented a clear seriation of alluvially deposited sediments, and these are correlated with later Archaic and Woodland period occupations at the site that are preserved in the upper sediments (Moeller 1980). Geochemical analyses, including pXRF and ICP-MS, provide a signature (or proportion of elements with pXRF) of sedimentary layers, which act as a “check” of the manual stratigraphic analyses conducted on the sediment cores. Patterns often exist within the proportion of elements in sediments that are macroscopically indiscernible and these aid in fence-diagram correlations of sediments across a site. Elevated values of potassium in PPI-1 at the Brian D. Jones site are correlated with the elevated LOI and small grain size sediments, indicating one such correlation and elemental signature for this layer. Elevated Lead (Pb), Copper (Cu), and Zinc (Zn) levels in the upper most layers of PPI-1 suggest contamination from the Industrial Revolution, or Anthropocene (Gałuszka et al. 2014). These methods also revealed that pollutants have little to no effect on deeply buried sediments, as PPI-1 clearly demonstrates low levels of heavy metals, likely derived from Triassic bedrock and Pleistocene surficial soils. Finally, the elevated Zirconium (Zr) levels at PPI-1 in Unit 2 may indicate a period of increased weathering and therefore landform stabilization (Taboada et al. 2006). Using these and other methods, significant variations and correlations in the elemental composition of sediments can determine changes in provenance of alluvially deposited sedimentary layers. 97 94 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 CONCLUSIONS The methods highlighted here, when used collectively to analyze a landscape, provide archaeologists with a way to assess “signatures” of buried Pleistocene landscapes. These signatures, when comparing known deeply buried Paleoindian sites in the region, include the presence of possible knick points downstream along the main river (which are clearly evident at Templeton, Brian D. Jones, and the Sands of the Blackstone sites) and small tributary streams, which act as debris or alluvial fan shields (present at Templeton, Brian D. Jones, Sharrow, and Shawnee-Minisink). It is also possible that these stream or river confluences serve not only in site preservation, but as a factor in Paleoindian site selection due to abundant freshwater and access to diverse plant and animal communities. GPR and LiDAR provide unprecedented, low-cost, and non-invasive methods for investigating alluvial landforms. Detailed LiDAR modeling of each of the sites discussed here provides a clear signature of elevated terraces. This signature, above all others, may be the best for quickly discriminating landforms with the potential to contain deeply buried archaeological sites and/or stratified archaeological deposits. GPR studies of the Templeton and Brian D. Jones sites provide rare windows into the landform formation processes that can guide both soil coring and later excavations. GPR studies at the Brian D. Jones site were critical to determining the paleo-channel course of the Thompson Brook, and the direct association of an alluvial fan, as was previously supposed at Templeton. Once archaeologically sensitive landforms have been identified, soil coring and geochemical analyses provide a range of analytical techniques that provide a wealth of information about site formation processes. These techniques are also useful for discriminating paleosol development and thus, site preservation. Other techniques, such as high-resolution AMS radiocarbon dating, permit the identification of areas that may contain Terminal Pleistocene archaeological sites and guide excavation of the surrounding areas. However, as with all predictive modeling in archaeology, these methods and models must be verified or “ground-truthed” through excavation. This is particularly important in the future, as we grapple with the increasing need to replace infrastructure from the last hundred years. Bridge replacements that predate the prestressed concrete superstructure era of construction (post-1960s) should be of particular interest to State and Federal regulatory authorities, Cultural Resource Management (CRM) firms, and academics. These locations are often ideal for both site preservation and the suite of techniques described here and fortunately were often constructed with minimal disturbance when compared with modern construction techniques. Moreover, as the majority (~90%) of archaeology occurs in CRM settings (Sebastian 2010), it is the most likely venue for regular large-scale, deep archaeological testing, which can be staged alongside incremental construction disturbance (see Leslie et al. 2020). Application of the methodology and understanding the preservation mechanisms acting at the sites discussed here may therefore permit archaeologists to predict, locate, and excavate other deeply buried Terminal Pleistocene archaeological sites in southern New England. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the Connecticut Department of Transportation, Institute for American Indian Studies Museum and Research Center, Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office, and Town of Avon, for funding aspects of this research. Preliminary versions of these investigations were also previously presented at the Scientific Exchange (SciX) Conference, and our participation was supported by 98 95 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 the Society for Archaeological Sciences. We are also indebted to several colleagues who participated in excavations and worked on various aspects of this research, including Sarah Sportman, Robert Thorson, Meg Harper, Caroline Allen, Samantha Dow, Chris Mason, Dawn Beamer, Ben Fellows, the Friends of the Office of State Archaeology, and Litchfield Hills Archaeology Club. REFERENCES Bristow, C. S. and Jol, H. M., eds. 2003 Ground Penetrating Radar in Sediments. Geological Society of London, Special Pub. 211. Clark, Anthony 2001 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. Oxon, New York: Routledge. Conyers, Lawrence B. 2004 Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Daniels, David J. 2004 Ground Penetrating Radar – 2nd Edition. London, UK: The Institute of Electrical Engineers. Gałuszka, A., Migaszewski, Z.M. and J. Zalasiewicz 2014 Assessing the Anthropocene with geochemical methods. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 395(1): 221-238. Gingerich, Joseph A. 2013 Revisiting Shawnee-Minisink. In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, Ed. Joseph Gingerich, pp. 218-256. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press. Heimmer, Don H. and De Vore, Steven L. 1995 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource Management and Archeological Investigations. Denver, CO: U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Kršák, B., Blišťan, P., Pauliková, A., Puškárová, P., Kovanič, Ľ., Palková, J. and Zelizňaková, V. 2016 Use of low-cost UAV photogrammetry to analyze the accuracy of a digital elevation model in a case study. Measurement, 91: 276-287. Lanesky, D.E., Logan, B.W., Brown, R.G. and Hine, A.C. 1979 A new approach to portable vibracoring underwater and on land. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 49(2): 654-657. Leach, Peter 2019 RADAN 7 for Archaeology, Forensics, and Cemeteries. Nashua, NH: Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. 99 96 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 Leslie, David E., Sarah P. Sportman and Brian D. Jones 2020 The Brian D. Jones Site (4-10B): A Multi-Component Paleoindian Site in Southern New England. PaleoAmerica, 6(2): 199-203. Leveillee, Alan 2016 Sands of the Blackstone: A PaleoIndian Site in the Narragansett Bay Drainage. A Public Archaeology Laboratory Publication. Providence, Rhode Island: The Public Archaeology Laboratory. McNett, Charles W., Jr. 1985 Shawnee-Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian–Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Moeller, Roger W. 1980 6LF21: A Paleo-Indian Site in Western Connecticut. Washington, Connecticut: American Indian Archaeological Institute. Nicoulin, Amberlee 2014 Fluvial Terraces and Post-Glacial River Incision Along the Farmington and Housatonic Rivers in Southern New England. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Storrs, Connecticut: University of Connecticut. Patton, Peter C. 1978 The Fluvial Geology of the Housatonic River Drainage System. In Hunters and Gatherers, Villages and Farms: A Preservation Plan for Litchfield County’s Past. Ed. R. Handsman, pp. 45-55. Washington, Connecticut: Research Manuscript Series of the American Indian Archaeological Institute. Petersen, Jim B. 1991 Archaeological Testing at the Sharrow Site: A Deeply Stratified Early to Late Holocene Cultural Sequence in Central Maine. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology 8. Augusta, ME: Maine Historic Preservation Commission. Sebastian, Lynne 2010 The Future of CRM Archaeology. In Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future, edited by Lynne Sebastian and William D. Lippe, pp.3-18. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Singer, Zachary 2017 Sub-Regional Patterning of Paleoindian Sites with Michaud-Neponset Points in New England and the Canadian Maritimes. PaleoAmerica, 3(4): 337-350. Taboada, T., Cortizas, A.M., García, C. and E. García-Rodeja 2006 Particle-size fractionation of titanium and zirconium during weathering and pedogenesis of granitic rocks in NW Spain. Geoderma, 131(1-2): 218-236. 100 97 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 VOLUME CONTRIBUTORS John Baron is a life-long resident of Hebron, former museum researcher and educator, public school teacher, and historically-trained woodworker. He holds a B.A. with Distinction in History from the University of Connecticut (1975) and a M.S. in Education, Eastern Connecticut State University (1990). Nicholas F. Bellantoni, Ph.D. serves as the Emeritus State Archaeologist with the Connecticut State Museum of Natural History at the University of Connecticut. He received his doctorate in anthropology from UConn in 1987 and was shortly thereafter appointed State Archaeologist. He also serves as an Adjunct Associate Research Professor in the Department of Anthropology at UConn, and is a former president of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut and the National Association of State Archeologists. James Doolittle is a retired Research Soil Scientist formerly with the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). He was a lead technical advisor to NRCS and other federal, state, county, and private agencies on ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EMI) methods. He authored 146 peer-review articles and made numerous presentations at national and international conferences. Jim is a native of Hamden, Connecticut. Mary Gage is an independent stone structure researcher. She is the author of articles and books on historic stone quarrying, historic carved stones and both historic and pre-contact stone structures. Rebecca Kraus is a senior in the Honors program at the University of Connecticut where she is obtaining a B.A. in Anthropology and a B.S. in Molecular and Cell Biology. In the fall she will be attending graduate school where she will study biological anthropology to pursue a research career in paleogenomics. Peter A. Leach M.Sc., RPA, is an Application Specialist in Archaeology and Forensics at Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. He is a leader in ground-penetrating radar applications to archaeological sites, and has collaborated on research projects throughout the world, including in North and South America, Europe, and Antarctica. David E. Leslie, Ph.D. is a Senior Archaeologist at Archaeological and Historical Services, Inc., a Research Scientist in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Connecticut, and President of the Archaeological Society of Connecticut. His research interests include Pleistocene and Holocene adaptations through lithic technology, remote sensing applications to archaeological sites, and stable isotope ecology. William B. Ouimet, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor in the Department of Geoscience and the Department of Geography at the University of Connecticut, and as a geologist is committed to understanding earth surface processes, landforms, and landscapes around the world. Cynthia Redman is an avocational archaeologist who completed her field school at Fort Shantok. She is a member of ASC and FOSA of which she was president from 2008 to 2014. 117 113 ASC Bulletin 83 2021 Zachary L.F. Singer, Ph.D. is the Research Archaeologist in the Office of Survey, Research, and Registration for the Maryland Historical Trust. His research includes the prehistoric archaeology of eastern North America with a particular focus on Paleoindian occupations of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Sarah P. Sportman, Ph.D. is Connecticut’s State Archaeologist and an Assistant Extension Professor at the University of Connecticut. She holds a B.A. in History from Union College (1999), an M.A. in History/Historical Archaeology from the University of Massachusetts Boston (2003), and a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Connecticut (2011). Her research interests include zooarchaeology, historical archaeology, and New England archaeology and ethnohistory. Deborah Surabian is the USDA NRCS state soil scientist for Connecticut and Rhode Island. She is experienced with describing, classifying, mapping, and interpreting terrestrial, anthropogenic, and subaqueous soils. Her skills include identifying natural versus disturbed soils and conducting GPR for engineering, archaeological, and forensic investigations. Emma Wink is a field archaeologist for Archaeological and Historical Services. She holds a B.A. from Eastern Connecticut State University and her primary research interest is analyzing Indigenous pottery from New England. 118 114 BULLETIN OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CONNECTICUT NUMBER 83 2021 SARAH P. SPORTMAN, Ph.D., Editor CONTENTS Editor’s Introduction SARAH P. SPORTMAN ................................................................................................................................................. 3 In Remembrance: Daniel Cruson NICHOLAS F. BELLANTONI and CYNTHIA REDMAN......................................................................................... 5 In Remembrance: Bruce Greene NICHOLAS F. BELLANTONI ........................................................................................................................................ 7 In Search of Graves: Looking Back in Time with Ground-Penetrating Radar DEBORAH SURABIAN, JAMES DOOLITTLE, and NICHOLAS F. BELLANTONI ....................................... 9 Bio-Archaeological Analysis of Bison Brook Farms Cemetery in North Stonington, Connecticut REBECCA KRAUS .......................................................................................................................................................29 Archaeological and Historical Research at the Cesar and Sim Peters House Site (67-7), Hebron, Connecticut JOHN BARON and SARAH P. SPORTMAN ........................................................................................................45 A Re-analysis of the Nature Conservancy Site: Social Connections in Connecticut During the Middle Woodland Period EMMA WINK and DAVID E. LESLIE ......................................................................................................................73 Deeply Buried Pleistocene Landscapes and the Search for Paleoindian Sites in the Northeast DAVID E. LESLIE, ZACHARY L.F. SINGER, WILLIAM B. OUIMET, and PETER A. LEACH .....................87 Woodworking: The Hidden Aspect of Archaeology MARY GAGE ............................................................................................................................................................. 101 Contributors ............................................................................................................................................................. 117