HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-20-40 - Supplemental - 0500 Old Farm Road (13)ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHASE I AND II INVESTIGATIONS OF NATIVE AMERICAN
SITES VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, AND VT-CH-1078 WITHIN THE O’BRIEN HOME
FARM PROPERTY, KIMBALL AVENUE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, CHITTENDEN
COUNTY, VERMONT.
Consulting Archaeology Program
University of Vermont
111 Delahanty Hall
180 Colchester Avenue
Burlington VT 05405
Report No. 597
March, 2010
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHASE I AND II INVESTIGATIONS OF NATIVE AMERICAN
SITES VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, AND VT-CH-1078 WITHIN THE O’BRIEN HOME
FARM PROPERTY, KIMBALL AVENUE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, CHITTENDEN
COUNTY, VERMONT.
Submitted to:
Josie Palmer Leavitt
O’Brien Brothers Agency
1855 Williston Road, PO Box 2184
South Burlington, VT 05407-2184
Submitted by:
Andrew M. Fletcher
&
John G. Crock, Ph. D.
Consulting Archaeology Program
University of Vermont
111 Delehanty Hall
180 Colchester Avenue
Burlington VT 05405
Report No. 597
March, 2010
i
ABSTRACT
The information presented in this report pertains to archaeological research and fieldwork
operations conducted by the University of Vermont Consulting Archaeology Program (UVM
CAP) at Native American sites VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, and VT-CH-1078. All three sites
were initially discovered during an archaeological Phase I site identification survey conducted for
the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project. The project’s Area of Potential
Effects (APE) is contained within an estimated 40 acre parcel located on Kimball Avenue in South
Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. At present, specific construction elements have not
been designed for the parcel, however future plans will likely involve industrial and/or commercial
development. In preparation for such development, and in accordance with Vermont’s Act 250
land use permit application process, the O’Brien Brothers Agency requested an archaeological
review of the project’s APE prior to further planning.
ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The archaeological studies conducted for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm development
project included an initial Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA), a Phase I site
identification survey, and a limited Phase II evaluation. As part of the ARA, UVM CAP Director
Dr. John G. Crock inspected the property to determine its sensitivity for pre-Contact era Native
American sites. During the inspection, Crock identified five major areas of archaeological interest.
Broadly, the areas were delineated based on their proximity to Potash Brook and on the known
archaeological record of the surrounding area. Based on the results of the ARA, an archaeological
Phase I site identification survey was recommended to determine whether any pre-Contact era
Native American sites would be impacted by the proposed development.
During the Phase I site identification survey, the archaeologically sensitive areas were
examined through a combination of systematic surface collections and subsurface test pit
sampling. As a result, three pre-Contact era Native American sites were identified and designated
VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, and VT-CH-1078 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory (VAI).
Because the areas containing site VT-CH-1078, and another immediately south of site VT-CH-
1077, were deemed integral to the potential design plans, a limited Phase II site evaluation was
proposed for these locations in an effort to clear them for industrial and/or commercial
development.
The Phase II fieldwork involved a series of 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pit excavations
amid a potentially significant portion of site VT-CH-1078, and more extensive grid interval test
pit sampling immediately off the southern boundary of site VT-CH-1077. Based on the results of
the limited Phase II investigation, it was determined that the evaluated areas do not possess
significant “data potential”, and are not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). As such, no additional archaeological fieldwork was recommended in these
locations prior to construction. Finally, based on the intense artifact densities recovered at sites
VT-CH-1076, and VT-CH-1077, a protective archaeological buffer was recommended for their
protection and preservation, as they represent potentially significant, and NRHP eligible, sites.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) .......................................................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
RESEARCH DESIGN .................................................................................................................. 6
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................... 7
CULTURAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 10
Vermont Prehistory ................................................................................................................... 10
Project Area Prehistory ............................................................................................................ 12
Potential Prehistoric Site Types in the General Project Area .................................................. 16
METHODS AND RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 18
Phase I Site Identification Survey ............................................................................................. 18
Area 1, VT-CH-1076 ............................................................................................................ 18
Area 2, VT-CH-1077 ............................................................................................................ 28
Area 3 .................................................................................................................................... 32
Areas 4 and 5, VT-CH-1078 ................................................................................................. 32
Phase II Evaluation of Site VT-CH-1078 .................................................................................. 36
Phase II Evaluation of Site VT-CH-1077 .................................................................................. 36
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................... 40
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 43
APPENDIX 1: Test Pit Profiles ................................................................................................ 47
APPENDIX 2: Project Personnel ............................................................................................. 52
APPENDIX 3: Glossary ............................................................................................................ 53
APPENDIX 4: Public Information Summary ......................................................................... 54
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map showing the location of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development
project on Kimball Avenue, in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source:
vcgi.org). ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Map showing the location of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development
project and nearby known archaeological sites in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont
(source: vcgi.org). ........................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Map showing the location of archeologically sensitive Areas 1-5 within the proposed
O’Brien Home Farm property development project in South Burlington, Chittenden County,
Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ............................................................................................................ 4
Figure 4. Map showing the results of the archaeological Phase I site identification survey within
the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden
County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 5. Map showing the location of Native American site VT-CH-1040 in relation to
archaeological sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm
property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Map showing the location of notable archaeological sites within a 2 kilometer radius
of the project parcel and within the Potash and Muddy Brook watersheds, South Burlington,
Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). .......................................................................... 15
Figure 7. View West, UVM CAP archaeologists conducting a systematic surface inspection
within Area 4 of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South
Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. .................................................................................... 19
Figure 8. View North, UVM CAP archaeologists mapping and collecting artifacts within Area 2
of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington,
Chittenden County, Vermont. ....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 9. Map showing the location of high density artifact concentrations representing sites
VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development
project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ............................... 20
Figure 10. Map showing the locations of surface collected artifacts representing Native
American site VT-CH-1078 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development
project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). ............................... 21
Figure 11. From left to right; one temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile point and two
projectile point preforms (PN #’s 204-1, 276-1, and 724-1), surface collected from Native
American site VT-CH-1076. ......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 12. Five unique modified flake tools surface collected from Native American site VT-
CH-1076. PN # 216-1 top left and 223-1 top right. PN #s 460-1, 410-1, and 292-1 bottom left to
right. .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 13. Three modified cobble fragments, working edges facing up; surface collected from
the hillside component of Native American site VT-CH-1076. PN # 716-1 top, 717-1 bottom
left, 721-1 bottm right. .................................................................................................................. 25
v
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)
Figure 14. Three unifacially flaked scraping implements surface collected from Native
American site VT-CH-1076. Left to right; PN # 217-1, 230-1, and 470-1. ................................ 27
Figure 15. Map showing the broad terrace formation shared by pre-Contact era Native American
sites VT-CH-130, 255, 429,430, and 1077, located along Potash Brook in South Burlington,
Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org). .......................................................................... 29
Figure 16. From left to right; two temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile points (PN #’s
343-1 and 124-1), one Normanskill type projectile point (PN # 316-1), and one projectile point
tip (PN # 138-1), surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1077. ............................ 30
Figure 17. Assortment of quartzite tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-
1077. Bottom left to right; one bifacially flaked tool fragment (PN # 377-1), one utilized flake
(PN # 360-1), and one modified fragment (PN # 337-1); working edges facing left. Top left to
right; one unifacially-flaked scraping implement (PN # 125-1), and one modified debitage
fragment (PN # 367-1); working edges facing up. ....................................................................... 31
Figure 18. Assortment of tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1078. Top
left to right; one utilized flake (PN # 102-1), and one biface fragment (PN # 117-1); working
edges facing up. Bottom left to right; one modified chert fragment (PN # 121-1), one modified
quartzite fragment (PN # 103-1); and one quartz biface (PN # 119-1); working edges facing up.
....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 19. PN # 118-1; modified chert fragment surface collected from site VT-CH-1078, within
the O’Brien Home Farm property in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. .............. 34
Figure 20. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II testing within the southwestern
locus of Native American site VT-CH-1078 in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont
(source: vcgi.org). ......................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 21. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II grid interval testing along the
southern margins of Native American site VT-CH-1077 in South Burlington, Chittenden County,
Vermont (source: vcgi.org). .......................................................................................................... 38
Figure 22. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II grid interval testing along the
southern margins of Native American site VT-CH-1077, and the resulting area cleared for
disturbance marked in green (source: vcgi.org). ........................................................................... 42
1
INTRODUCTION
On the dates of November 10th and 11th, 2009, the University of Vermont
Consulting Archaeology Program (UVM CAP) completed a series of archaeological
studies for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm development project. The proposed project
encompasses approximately 40 acres, and is located between Kimball Avenue and Old
Farm Road in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (Figure 1). Though specific
project plans were not yet designed for the parcel at the time of the investigation, future
plans were expected to include a combination of industrial and commercial development.
In preparation for such development, and to comply with Vermont’s ACT 250 permit
application process, an archaeological review of the project’s Area of Potential Effects
(APE) was requested by the O’Brien Brothers Agency. The studies conducted for the
proposed development included an initial Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA), a
Phase I site identification survey, and a limited Phase II evaluation.
The initial ARA level review was performed on June 17, 2009, by UVM CAP
Director Dr. John G. Crock. Using an environmental predictive model developed by the
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP), project area sensitivity was
determined largely on the basis of its proximity to Potash Brook and on the known
archaeological record of the surrounding area (Figure 2). Ultimately, five major portions
of the project parcel were deemed archaeologically sensitive. As such, a Phase I site
identification survey was recommended to determine whether any pre-Contact era Native
American sites would be impacted by the development (Figure 3).
Between the dates of August 4th and 6th, 2009, UVM CAP archaeologists carried
out the Phase I survey through a combination of systematic surface inspections and
subsurface test pit sampling. As a result of the investigation, three pre-Contact era Native
American sites were identified and designated VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, and VT-CH-
1078 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory (VAI). The sites were identified on the
basis of multiple lithic scatters collected from several areas within the project parcel
(Figure 4).
Following a review of the known artifact distributions, it was determined that the
densest portion of site VT-CH-1077 and the entirety of site VT-CH-1076 should be
preserved and protected. Conversely, it was decided that the areas containing site VT-CH-
1078, and an area immediately south of site VT-CH-1077 represented the best options to
be cleared for industrial and/or commercial development through a limited Phase II site
evaluation.
What follows is a compilation of research and investigative data produced as a
result of the archaeological surveys conducted within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm
property. The studies undertaken for this project were conducted pursuant to Vermont’s
Act 250 permit application process and followed the Guidelines for Conducting
Archaeological Studies in Vermont (Peebles 2002). This report contains information on
the environmental and cultural context of the project area, detailed descriptions of the
Phase I investigation, a summary of sampling methods and results, conclusions,
recommendations, and appropriate appendices.
2
Figure 1. Map showing the location of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development
project on Kimball Avenue, in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
3
Figure 2. Map showing the location of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development
project and nearby known archaeological sites in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont
(source: vcgi.org).
4
Figure 3. Map showing the location of archeologically sensitive Areas 1-5 within the proposed
O’Brien Home Farm property development project in South Burlington, Chittenden County,
Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
5
Figure 4. Map showing the results of the archaeological Phase I site identification survey within
the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden
County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
6
RESEARCH DESIGN
The archaeological studies conducted for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm
development project adhered to a specific research design. The overall imperative of this
design was to contribute to the identification, evaluation, protection, and preservation of
Vermont’s archaeological resources. To achieve these ends, systematic field
methodologies were employed by the UVM CAP according to guidelines established by
the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP). Below is a summary of these
guidelines.
The primary objectives of the Archaeological Resources Assessment are: 1) to
provide sufficient information to gauge the general archaeological sensitivity of a project’s
Area of Potential Effects (APE); and 2) to determine whether further archaeological studies
will be necessary as the project proceeds. The parameters for establishing project area
sensitivity are based on the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation’s “Environmental
Predictive Model for Locating Archaeological Sites.” Depending on the results of the
sensitivity assessment, subsequent recommendations for an Archaeological Phase I site
identification survey may then be issued.
Phase I site identification surveys often employ systematic surface inspections of
plowed areas, and/or utilize 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pit excavations for subsurface
sampling. The goals of the Phase I site identification survey are to: 1) determine the
existence and location of any prehistoric and/or historic period sites within the project’s
APE; and 2) present preliminary information that can form the basis and framework for a
more intensive archaeological evaluation should a site be identified. In the event of site
identification, various measures will be recommended to avoid and/or protect the site. If a
potentially significant site cannot be avoided and/or preserved, a Phase II evaluation will
then be recommended.
The goals of the Phase II site evaluation are to: 1) obtain more detailed information
on the integrity, condition, boundaries, size, stratigraphy, structure, function and context(s)
of the site; 2) sufficiently evaluate its significance and/or lack of significance; 3)
specifically determine, based on the above information, whether or not the site meets the
criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and 4) if
necessary, provide an adequate plan for mitigating through avoidance, data recovery, or
other means, any anticipated adverse impacts to the archaeological site (Peebles 2002).
7
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
In an effort to understand how and where Vermont’s prehistoric populations lived,
archaeologists try to explore any dynamic that would have had an impact on, or influential
role in the lives and behaviors of Native American people. The reconstruction of
prehistoric settlement patterns can depend heavily on information drawn from
environmental factors such as topographic variability, the distribution of lakes, ponds,
rivers and streams, plant and animal diversity, and local geology. In examining these
factors, definable patterns of human occupation and the interplay between cultural and
environmental contexts may begin to emerge.
In this case, the general project area lies within the physiographic subdivision of
Vermont known as the Champlain Lowland zone. It is a region of low rolling hills, north-
south trending ridges, delta plains, and flat lakeshore terraces (Howland 1974:10). The
Champlain Lowland marks the western extent of northern Vermont, stretching
approximately 160 km (100 mi) from the Canadian border in the north to the Poultney
River in the south (Jacobs 1950). Approximately 32 km (20 mi) at its maximum width, the
Lowland is bounded by Lake Champlain to the west and by the Green Mountains to the
east. This area was once covered by an arm of the Champlain Sea during the early
Holocene period (ca. 12,000 cal yr B.P.) and therefore reflects the topography of this
ancient lacustrine environment.
Topographic relief throughout the lake plain is controlled by the underlying
bedrock, and can often be quite complex. In areas where bedrock materials outcrop,
prehistoric inhabitants may have gathered in search of essential raw material for tool
manufacture. For the most part, local prehistoric populations used quartzite, chert and less
frequently quartz, for the fabrication of stone tools. The underlying bedrock within the
project area is mapped as part of the Bascom formation. This formation consists of
interbedded dolomite, limestone or marble, calcareous sandstone, quartzite, and limestone
breccia (Doll 1961). Though bedrock exposures of quality chert, quartzite, or quartz are
not likely to outcrop in the immediate area, loose samples of this material may be found
scattered throughout the open fields and stream drainages in the form of glacially-deposited
cobbles.
Based on local prehistoric settlement patterns, however, it seems that Native
American people were drawn to the project area more for wetland resource exploitation
than raw material procurement (see Figure 2). Locally, Potash Brook is a prominent
hydrological feature and home to many known archaeological sites. Its watershed
encompasses an area of approximately 5,300 acres or 7.5 square miles (Pease 1997). The
main stem of the brook originates in the southeast quadrant of South Burlington, and runs
a length of 11.47 km (7.13 mi) before emptying into Lake Champlain through Shelburne
Bay (Nelson and Nealon 2003).
Lake Champlain is fed by an abundance of hydrological features such as wetlands,
ponds, rivers and streams throughout the Lowland zone. Some of the prominent
watersheds within this zone include the Winooski River, Lamoille River, Missisquoi River,
Otter Creek, and Muddy Brook among others. Muddy Brook, a secondary tributary to the
Winooski River, is located approximately 1.2 km (.75 mi) east of the project parcel.
Flowing between Shelburne Pond and the Winooski River, Muddy Brook provided a
8
valuable travel and communication corridor throughout prehistoric and historic times. The
close proximity of Potash and Muddy Brooks to each other undoubtedly served as an
important resource exploitation link within the general region (Mandel and Crock, 2006).
In terms of native forest vegetation, the Champlain Lowland is typically classified
as a Transitional-Hardwood-White-Pine-Hemlock forest zone. As the name suggests, a
variety of species occupied this area (Petersen and Power 1983). These include eastern
white pine, red maple, sugar maple, American beech, red and white oak, birch, eastern
hemlock, northern white cedar, and eastern red cedar. The diverse vegetation of this zone
provided for a variety of wildlife habitats and plants that late prehistoric populations could
have exploited. Large mammals such as white tailed deer, moose and black bear, as well
as smaller mammals would have been common. Plants, both edible and suitable for
producing textiles, shelters, weapons and other daily tools would have been available at
least on a seasonal basis. Understanding seasonal exploitation of these resources by Native
Americans in relation to their settlement patterns is a primary focus of prehistoric
archaeology in Vermont.
Climatic changes influenced the biota, and ultimately the human population in
Vermont during the Holocene epoch. Following de-glaciation, a spruce-fir parkland and
tundra environment persisted to about 9500 cal yr B.P. During the post-glacial optimum,
ca. 7500 – 4000 cal yr B.P., mixed conifer and hardwood forests evolved. The changing
climate of the Holocene epoch directly affected the floral regimes and their dependent
animal communities. This in turn affected the way in which human populations adapted
to their environment since their arrival in the region ca. 13,000 – 11,500 cal yr B.P.
With the dawn of the historic era, forest cover changed dramatically as modern land
usage in the Champlain Lowland zone varied from logging to hay and corn cultivation, and
livestock grazing (USDA 1989:26). Though much of the Lowlands, particularly around
the project area, have been cleared for agricultural, residential, and commercial use over
the past 200 years, a wide range flora and fauna persist today that were likely abundant
during late prehistoric times.
The incipient plant life of the Champlain Valley is supported by fairly dynamic soil
types which formed over the past 13,000 years from complex glacio-lacustrine events. The
project parcel itself seems to straddle the edge of an old glacial lake plain, which covers
extensive areas south of the Winooski River within the towns of South Burlington and
Williston. Ancient lacustrine sediments deposited here approximately 12,500 years ago
consist predominately of fine textured clays and silts. In other areas of the project parcel,
however, marine sediments related to a former Champlain Sea delta complex also are
present. These deposits are generally sandy in composition (Mandel and Crock, 2006).
Within the study area, the official soil compositions include Adams Windsor loamy
sands, Farmington Stockbridge rocky loams, Vergennes clay, and Covington silty clay.
Sites VT-CH-1076 and 1077 are dominated by Adams Windsor loamy sands as they are
located closer to the southern limits of the sandy Champlain Sea delta complex. Farmington
Stockbridge rocky loam marks the 12-20% slope along the western extent of site VT-CH-
1076, where interestingly, a greater percentage of cobble sized artifacts were recovered.
To the south, site VT-CH-1078 is broadly characterized by Vergennes clay and Covington
9
silty clay; roughly corresponding to the northern extent of the finer glacial lake plain
sediments.
In summary, it is evident that the project parcel is located in an area that has
experienced dynamic environmental shifts over the millennia, yet despite this ever
changing backdrop, it has endured as an ideal location for both prehistoric and modern
habitation. Data drawn from the many known archaeological sites throughout the Potash
Brook portion of the Champlain Lowland indicates that the area was settled repeatedly over
thousands of years, for a variety of residential and camp-based activities. As will be
discussed in the sections to follow, closer examination of the many site types within this
region will undoubtedly lend itself to a better understanding of local human adaptation and
settlement patterns.
10
CULTURAL CONTEXT
VERMONT PREHISTORY
The importance of pre-Contact era Native American archaeological sites in
Vermont is emphasized by the absence of written records. Aside from oral tradition,
scientific investigation of prehistoric sites represents the only record of Native American
life in Vermont prior to European contact (Toney and Crock, 2006). Data compiled
through past and ongoing investigations has enabled the development of a general
framework of Vermont’s prehistoric heritage.
In terms of the O’Brien Home Farm project area, Native American sites VT-CH-
1076, 1077, and, to a lesser extent, 1078, were identified on the basis of abundant cultural
content. Temporally diagnostic projectile points dateable to the Late Woodland Period, ca.
1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P., and projectile point types possessing characteristics attributable
to the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal yr B.P., were identified at sites VT-CH-
1076 and VT-CH-1077. In order to better conceptualize these different time periods, it is
important to take a look at the full range of prehistoric Native American occupation within
Vermont, ca. 13,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. The Vermont historic preservation plan contains an
overview of Native American prehistory for the state and is quoted and paraphrased here
to provide a basis for understanding pre-Contact period occupation within the study area
(VDHP 1991:10-13).
Vermont’s earliest settlers, called Paleoindians, began to move into Vermont
around 13,000 – 11,500 cal yr B.P., at the end of the last ice age. With the retreat of the
glaciers, the barren tundra gradually gave way to a park-tundra of spruce, fir, and birch that
sustained mastodons, woolly mammoths, and large herds of caribou. The increased
availability of plant and animal resources would have been critical to the expansion of
Paleoindian populations. Furthermore, the Atlantic Ocean began to inundate the St.
Lawrence River valley and Champlain Lowland, forming the Champlain Sea, which
supported a wide variety of marine animals that Paleoindians may have hunted in addition
to land-based fauna. Their hunting tool kit featured the fluted point, a type of spear point
unique to the earlier part of this period in prehistory. During the Late Paleoindian Period
(11,500-10,000 cal yr B.P.), a technological shift to non-fluted points occurred. Though
theories abound as to whether the shift was based on utility versus style, the transition
remains a significant temporal indicator in the archaeological record.
About 30 Paleoindian sites have been found in Vermont, including sites in the
towns of Burlington, Colchester, Highgate, Ludlow, Milton, and Williston (e.g., Doherty
et al. 2000). Living as semi-nomadic groups of hunters and gatherers, it is believed that
Paleoindians often traveled great distances while in pursuit of game, or to procure raw
material for tool production. Extensive trade networks also may have existed, as is
suggested by sites in Vermont containing lithic raw material from origins as far away as
Maine, central New York, Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts coast.
By the beginning of the Early Archaic period (10,000 – 8,000 cal yr B.P.),
hardwood trees began to appear in the Champlain Valley, increasing its ecological diversity
while the uplands remained dominated by conifers. Developing lakes, ponds, and wetland
environments provided improved habitat for birds, animals, and a wide variety of useful
plants. As closed forest cover developed over the region, Native American populations
11
began to gradually increase by employing a more localized subsistence strategy and
utilizing a wide array of local natural resources. Most of the sites discovered from this
2,000 year period have been identified on the basis of small, bifurcated base or side-
notched spear points, also known as Swanton corner-notched points, which were used for
hunting. The John’s Bridge site, an Early Archaic campsite containing bifurcate base spear
points, located in Swanton, Vermont, has been dated to ca. 8,100 cal yr B.P. (Thomas and
Robinson 1983).
Historic building site VT-RU-264, located on a small terrace above the Otter Creek
floodplain in Wallingford, Vermont, also contained an undisturbed Early Archaic
component, based on the recovery of a Swanton corner-notched point. This site represents
the southernmost extent of this type of spear point in Vermont so far identified (Doherty et
al. 1995). The locations of these two sites suggest that the diverse resources associated
with river floodplains were attractive to inhabitants of this time period.
Little is known about the subsequent Middle Archaic period (8,000 – 6,000 cal yr
B.P.). Diagnostic artifacts for this time period are relatively unknown or have not been
recognizable (Haviland and Power 1994). Isolated finds of diagnostic Middle Archaic
tools associated with cultures to the west and south of Vermont further confuse their
temporal affiliation, as does the poor context of most of these finds. Undoubtedly, people
continued to live in Vermont during this time period (e.g., Petersen et al. 1985:57-59;
Thomas 1992).
At the beginning of the Late Archaic period (6,000 – 3,000 cal yr B.P.), the warm
regional climate fostered human population growth. Not only could groups exploit the
increased food resources in the rich valleys and bottom lands, but the upland regions as
well. Particularly, the lakes and ponds witnessed a proliferation of animal and plant
communities. Residential and other activity sites from this period have been found in all
parts of Vermont, from lakeshores to mountain tops (e.g. Thomas 2000). Evidence
suggests that people returned to many sites repeatedly in the course of their seasonal
rounds. The extensive array of woodworking tools found in sites dating to the Late Archaic
period suggests that the dugout canoe was an important method of transportation. Like the
earlier Paleoindian period, there is some evidence of wide-ranging exchange networks,
though most of the stone used for tools was derived from local sources. Some examples
of long distance exchange items found at Late Archaic sites in Vermont include a walrus
tooth from Arctic Canada, copper tools and beads from the upper Great Lakes, and shells
from the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., Haviland and Power 1994).
The Early Woodland period (ca. 3,000 – 2000 cal yr B.P.), saw several major
changes. For the first time pottery is represented in the archaeological record, and we
believe the bow and arrow also came into use at this time. The Early Woodland period in
Vermont is represented at several burial sites (e.g., Haviland and Power 1994,
Heckenberger et al. 1990; Loring 1985). Ritual mortuary practices and artifacts found at
these cemetery sites suggest a close cultural affiliation with Adena cultures in the Midwest
(Mandel and Crock 2007). Though few Early Woodland sites have been identified and
thoroughly studied in Vermont, the Auclair and Ewing sites, located in the Winooski River
watershed, contain cultural deposits of this time period (Mandel and Crock 2007; e.g.,
Petersen et al. 1985:61, Table 5; Thomas and Doherty 1981: Table 1, 1985: Table C).
12
Long-term population growth in the region apparently began at the beginning of
the Middle Woodland period (2,000 – 1,000 cal yr B.P.). At that time people shifted
between increasing numbers of environmental habitats (e.g., from mountains to valleys) to
exploit the full range of available resources, reflecting a more diversified subsistence
strategy. The Winooski site, located in the lower Winooski River valley, is one of the best
known sites from this period and contains a stratified sequence of Middle Woodland
occupations that date to ca. 2,000 – 1,000 cal yr B.P. (Petersen 1980).
By the beginning of the Late Woodland period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal yr B.P.,
extensive settlements could be found in all of Vermont’s major river valleys. It was during
this time that the seasonal cycle of hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild plant foods was
supplemented by the planting and harvesting of crops. Corn-bean-squash cultivation
quickly became an important component of the diversified subsistence strategy. To date,
Vermont’s earliest known farm site is located in Springfield on the Connecticut River. By
approximately 900 cal yr B.P., corn, beans, and squash were being cultivated and stored in
pits beneath small houses located along the Connecticut River floodplain (Heckenberger
et al. 1992). Corn horticulture on the Winooski Intervale was actively being practiced
approximately 550 years ago, if not before (Bumstead 1980).
The arrival of Samuel de Champlain on Lake Champlain in 1609 marked the
beginning of the end for a way of life that had persisted for nearly 11,000 years. Although
earlier fluctuations in climate, forest, and food resources had required slow but continual
change in indigenous subsistence strategies, the intimate interaction of Native Americans
and their environment had allowed them to adapt successfully. The rapid expansion of
European presence and influence in the area however, resulted in an unsuccessful
adaptation to this newly inserted, foreign, sociopolitical and economic system. Native
people suddenly found that they had to compete with Europeans for the same croplands
and wild resources. In addition, the European arrival exacerbated pre-existing intertribal
conflicts, and introduced diseases for which they had no immunity. This resulted in the
decimation of entire indigenous communities. Although war and dispersal dominated the
Native American world from A.D. 1600-1800, Vermont’s Native culture including the
western Abenaki, adapted and persist to this day.
PROJECT AREA PREHISTORY
As part of the overall investigation for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm
development project, state records and archaeological reports were referenced to identify
any known prehistoric Native American sites existing within or near the limits of the
project parcel. A review of the VAI database indicated that at least 60 archaeological sites
are known to exist within the surrounding Potash and Muddy Brook watersheds. The
majority of these sites are located on lake or delta plain features along the edges of the two
brooks, their tributaries, or at stream confluences (Mandel and Crock 2006).
Among the closest is Native American site VT-CH-1040, which occupies the edges
of the same sandy delta formation and tributary to Potash Brook as that of VT-CH-1076
and VT-CH-1077 (Figure 5). Based on their spatial characteristics and artifact inventories,
all three sites are likely extensions of the same settlement series. As a result of multiple
archaeological studies at site VT-CH-1040, four spatially discrete cultural
13
Figure 5. Map showing the location of Native American site VT-CH-1040 in relation to
archaeological sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm
property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
14
activity areas were recorded within the project’s boundaries. These areas were defined
within two site loci designated Locus A and Locus B. Evidence recovered during
systematic Phase II evaluation and Phase III data recovery efforts indicated that at least
three non-contemporaneous episodes of occupation are represented at the site. Based on
the recovery of several temporally diagnostic projectile point types, the time periods
include the Late Archaic period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal yr B.P., the Early Woodland period,
ca. 3,000 – 2,000 cal yr B.P., and the Late Woodland period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal yr B.P.
Current analysis of the extensive artifact inventory suggests that various camp-based
activities were conducted at the site including stone tool manufacture and refurbishment,
material processing, heating and/or cooking activities, and possibly personal or ritual
adornment. Similar to sites VT-CH-1076 and 1077, an overwhelming majority of the
artifacts recovered were derived from locally available Cheshire quartzite. This kind of
continuity through thousands of years of settlement represents an interesting topic of
research which deserves greater exploration.
Another noteworthy site in the near vicinity is pre-Contact era Native American
site VT-CH-878. This site was identified as part of an earlier O’Brien Home Farm
development survey on Kennedy Drive, located approximately 460 m (.29 mi) northwest
of the Kimball Avenue project location (Figure 6). Similar to VT-CH-1040, site VT-CH-
878 occupies a sandy relict delta overlooking deeply incised portions of the Potash Brook
watershed. Archaeological Phase I and II investigations at the site resulted in the
identification of two areas of cultural activity containing artifacts attributable to the Early
and Middle Woodland periods, ca. 3,000 – 1,000 cal yr B.P. Its temporal affiliation was
partly based on the recovery of Vinette I type pottery dateable to the Early Woodland
period, ca. 3,000 – 2,000 cal yr B.P. In addition, the recovery of Levanna type projectile
points, combined with radio carbon dates obtained from a cultural feature, indicated the
presence of a Middle Woodland period component dating to ca. 1,300 – 1,000 cal yr B.P.
(Mandel and Crock, 2006).
A review of the Mandel and Crock (2006) O’Brien Home Farm Site report indicates
that:
Of the identified prehistoric sites within the Muddy and Potash Brook watersheds, more
than half can be attributed to a known period of occupation. The sites with temporal
affiliation represent occupations ranging from the Early Archaic to Late Woodland
periods, ca. 10,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. Among them, site VT-CH-3, which is located on
Muddy Brook just north of Shelburne Pond, is reported to contain artifacts dating to every
phase of the Archaic and Woodland period range.
Other known sites in the general area tend to represent more narrow occupations,
including three of the four sites identified from the Adams Industrial Park survey. These
sites contained projectile point types dating to the Late Archaic period alone (Thomas and
Kochan 1987). Finally, site VT-CH-76, which is located near Potash Brook in the
northwest corner of the Technology Park subdivision, contained a Levanna type projectile
point dating to Late Woodland period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal yr B.P. Based on the information
from these and other site locations within the general area, similar occupations ranging
from the Late Archaic to the Late Woodland period were anticipated within the O’Brien
Home Farm development property.
15
Figure 6. Map showing the location of notable archaeological sites within a 2 kilometer radius of
the project parcel and within the Potash and Muddy Brook watersheds, South Burlington,
Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
16
In the Muddy and Potash Brook watersheds, data related to site size can vary
dramatically depending on how the sites and site clusters are interpreted in relationship to
one another. Documented sites in this area may range in size from approximately 72 m2
(775 ft2) to 6,000 m2 (64,500 ft2) or more. Some of the larger sites include VT-CH-265,
266, 267, and 9268, which were identified during the Adams Industrial Park survey
(Thomas and Kochan 1987). These sites are located on the east side of Muddy Brook,
approximately 1.79 km (1.11 mi) southeast of the O’Brien Home Farm project area (see
Figure 6). Although these sites were large in breadth, and were identified on the basis of
widely distributed stone artifacts, subsequent research showed that the general site areas
were comprised of many smaller artifact clusters, some as small as 30 m2 (323 ft2).
Ultimately, artifact clusters or loci such as these may be interpreted as individual
occupations or episodes of activity, but they may also be part of larger site establishments
and repeated occupations within the broader area. As such, it is important to consider
similar spatial patterning when assessing the results of archaeological investigations like
the O’Brien Home Farm property development project, and/or planning future surveys.
POTENTIAL PREHISTORIC SITE TYPES IN THE GENERAL PROJECT AREA
A framework of various site types that could potentially be identified within the
O’Brien Home Farm property was developed prior to the initiation of the archaeological
Phase I survey. Based on several site types listed in the prehistoric context of Vermont’s
Historic Preservation Plan (VDHP 1991), it was anticipated that base camps, small
residential camps, and/or small extractive camps may be present within the immediate
study area.
Small residential camps and small extractive camps may contain relatively low to
moderate densities of artifacts that are concentrated in spatially limited activity areas.
These site types are often related to a single episode of occupation. Site size can range
between 100 m2 (1,076 ft2) and 500 m2 (5,380 ft2), and are frequently as small as 50 m2
(538 ft2) (e.g. Thomas 1986). The majority of artifacts are likely to occur around shelters
and hearths where most camp related activities typically took place. Small residential
camps and small extractive camps are common from around Shelburne Pond (Petersen et
al. 1985). Base camps, on the other hand, may contain multiple activity areas, evidence of
extensive tool manufacture, and a wide variety of tool types. Site size may range up to
4000 m2 (43,040 ft2) or more in areas of high resource potential. Based on past surveys in
Burlington and Colchester, such sites are most likely to be located along former and current
channels of the Winooski River (Thomas 2000).
Found throughout the state, these sites types were probably established by small
groups pursuing food and material resources from a variety of environmental settings. This
kind of subsistence strategy would have been subject to the availability of resources as
determined by local, seasonal, and environmental conditions over the course of many years,
or even centuries. As a result, the age, seasonality, and artifact content of small residential,
extractive, and base camps can often be quite disparate from site to site. Since major topics
of research identified in the prehistoric context of Vermont’s historic preservation plan
include the development of cultural chronologies for the state; sites that contain aspects of
past technological, settlement, and subsistence systems across space and time may be
significant.
17
Because artifact and feature content tends to vary according to the activities
undertaken within a given site; artifact assemblages, cultural features, and their spatial
patterns are integral elements in determining the purpose of a site and how it functioned
within a larger cultural system.
Based on known site typologies and judging by the natural setting of the project
parcel, it was expected that sites within the project’s APE might contain one or more small
hearths and possibly scatters of fire-affected rock. In general, most hearths are probably
smaller than 1 m2 (11 ft2). Hearths may contain carbonized bone and plant materials related
to food preparation, and wood charcoal that can be used to date the period of occupation.
Quartzite, chert, and quartz flakes produced during stone tool manufacture are likely to be
the most common artifacts in these areas. Most flakes may be clustered in areas of 1-3 m2
(11-32 ft2). The tools themselves are far less common, but where present, provide
important clues for understanding the types of activities that were undertaken.
Data from known sites throughout Vermont suggest that artifact density within
portions of many prehistoric sites is likely to be low. During a Phase I survey, a single
lithic flake recovered in good context is considered sufficient evidence to identify a
prehistoric Native American site. Due to the low density and small size of sites, it is not
surprising that tools, and features such as hearths, are not often identified during the Phase
I level of testing.
Bedrock quarries, quarry workshops, burial sites, and find spots also are associated
with the cultural activities of Vermont’s earliest inhabitants (VDHP 1991). Lithic
quarrying workshops are unlikely to be present in the near vicinity, as suitable raw material
outcrops are not known from the immediate area. Burial sites may be present in the area,
but are not likely to be encountered through Phase I level sampling methods.
18
METHODS AND RESULTS
Prior to the commencement of archaeological fieldwork within the O’Brien Home
Farm property, an Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA) was performed by UVM
CAP Director Dr. John G. Crock. During the ARA, specific project locations were
assessed using the VDHP’s environmental predictive model for locating archaeological
sites. In general, the project received a high sensitivity score based on its proximity to
Potash Brook and on the known archaeological record of the surrounding area. Ultimately,
Crock designated five major locations (Areas 1-5) within the project’s Area of Potential
Effects (APE) as sensitive for pre-Contact era Native American sites. As a result, an
archaeological Phase I site identification survey was recommended to determine whether
any potentially significant sites would be impacted by the proposed development.
PHASE I SITE IDENTIFICATION SURVEY
For the purposes of the Phase I site identification survey, sensitive Areas 1-5 were
plowed to allow for systematic surface inspections by UVM CAP archaeologists.
Following sufficient rainfall, the freshly rinsed fields were carefully examined for evidence
of pre-Contact era Native American cultural deposits (Figure 7). During the investigation,
all identified lithic material related to prehistoric Native American occupation was flagged,
collected, and its specific location recorded. Mapping of surface artifacts was
accomplished using a Trimble Geo XT GPS unit and Topcon GTS-230 Total Station with
handheld data recorder (Figure 8).
As a result of the archaeological Phase I surface collection, high-density artifact
concentrations were identified on either side of a tributary to Potash Brook which divides
Areas 1 and 2. The artifact concentrations were designated sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-
CH-1077 in the Vermont Archaeological Inventory (VAI) (Figure 9). Furthermore, a
diffuse scatter of artifacts, some questionable, were recovered from the large plowed fields
designated Areas 4 and 5. This portion of the project was collectively designated site VT-
CH-1078 in the VAI (Figure 10).
Area 1, VT-CH-1076
Area 1 encompasses approximately 1.44 acres within the far northern extent of the
proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project. It is located on the north
side of an active tributary to Potash Brook, and is part of a larger terrace formation
containing known archaeological site VT-CH-1040. Native American site VT-CH-1076
was identified on the basis of artifacts scattered across large portions of Area 1, with the
heaviest concentrations occurring along the edge of the Potash Brook tributary (see Figure
9).
Based on a complete laboratory analysis, the artifacts recovered at site VT-CH-
1076 include 273 lithic debitage specimens, 19 flaked-tools, 6 fire-affected rock fragments,
and 14 unmodified and/or questionable-status lithic samples. In terms of the lithic material
types present, the debitage and flaked-tool assemblage consists predominantly of quartzite
(95.55%), followed by undifferentiated chert (2.74%), quartz (.68%), other (.68%), and
local rhyolite (.34%).
19
Figure 7. View West, UVM CAP archaeologists conducting a systematic surface inspection within
Area 4 of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington,
Chittenden County, Vermont.
Figure 8. View North, UVM CAP archaeologists mapping and collecting artifacts within Area 2
of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden
County, Vermont.
20
Figure 9. Map showing the location of high density artifact concentrations representing sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 within the proposed
O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
21
Figure 10. Map showing the locations of surface collected artifacts representing Native American
site VT-CH-1078 within the proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, South
Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
22
The tools identified within the assemblage include one broken projectile point, two
projectile point preforms, four bifacially-flaked tool fragments, five modified flakes, three
“expediently” modified cobble fragments, three unifacial scraping implements, and one
utilized fragment.
A quick look at the triangular shape of the broken projectile point (PN # 204-1)
indicates that it is a Levanna type arrowhead, dateable to the Late Woodland Period ca.
1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P. In contrast, the two projectile point preforms (PN #’s 276-1 and
724-1) clearly do not belong to the Levanna typology. While their unfinished quality may
prohibit specific temporal affiliation, it can be argued that the stem feature on PN # 276-1
most closely resembles that of the Susquehanna or Adena typologies. Such projectile point
types can be attributed to the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal. yrs. B.P., and
Early Woodland Period, ca. 3,000 – 2,000 cal. yrs. B.P., respectively.
Figure 11. From left to right; one temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile point and two
projectile point preforms (PN #’s 204-1, 276-1, and 724-1), surface collected from Native
American site VT-CH-1076.
23
In terms of the four bifacially-flaked tool fragments (PN #’s 239-1, 275-1, 468-1,
and 487-1), laboratory analysis was somewhat limited. In general they appear to represent
indeterminate portions, or edge fragments, of various tool types ranging from cutting
implements to possible projectile points.
In a similar regard, the five modified flake tools appear to represent a diverse range
of styles and functions (Figure 12). Unlike the biface fragments however, these allowed
for somewhat better analysis. PN # 216-1 is a thin reduction flake with limited
modification to its distal edge. It appears to be a simple processing tool for relatively soft
materials. PN # 223-1 is a more robust flake with unifacial modification along its thickest
edge. This implement would have been suitable for working harder materials. PN # 292-
1 appears to be an early stage reduction flake, and despite the presence of a deep and
probably modern flake scar, it is characterized by subtle modification and/or usewear along
its sharpest edge. Based on the nature of the tool’s shape, size, and design, it seems most
appropriately described as a handheld cutting implement. PN # 410-1 is best described as
a broken modified flake tool which was apparently repurposed after it broke. Its shortened
working edge could have been ideal for finer scraping or peeling details. Finally, PN #
460-1 is rather unique in its shape. It is a relatively thick flake which ultimately thins and
narrows approaching its modified “bit” end. Viewed from the dorsal surface, the
modifications create an indented unifacial edge on the right side of the tool. At first glance
the tool looks like it could have been a reworked drill, yet upon closer examination its form
is suggestive of a left-handed scraping or shaving implement best used for processing
moderately hard materials.
Up to this point, the overall discussion of site VT-CH-1076 and its tool assemblage
has not been paired with an internal spatial analysis. This is partly because the entire
artifact inventory was recovered from an historic plow-disturbed context. However, one
spatial correlation that calls for some attention was the recovery of three notably different
modified cobble fragments from the 12-20% slope immediately west of the core activity
area.
On a superficial level, the three modified fragments appear “roughly” manufactured
as compared to the more intricately worked and finer material artifacts recovered from the
core activity area (Figure 13). Based on the material alone, the modified fragments appear
to be locally acquired stones. These could have easily been collected from the Farmington-
Stockbridge rocky soil which characterizes the slope where they were identified. The tools
were fashioned from small quartz and ortho-quartzite cobbles, which were split, and their
exposed facets unifacially modified. The quartz tool (PN # 716-1) has a thick polyhedral
shape with original outer cortex present on one side. One of its interior edges exhibits light
modification and/or possible usewear. Similarly, the two ortho-quartzite tools (PN #’s 717-
1 and 721-1) possess some original outer cortex, and were minimally prepared so as to
have at least one steep faceted edge. Their functioning edges show usewear to the extent
that they were eventually rounded smooth. Broadly based on their physical attributes, as
well as their hillside location, all three of the modified fragments bear similarities to that
of known Early Archaic tool assemblages, ca. 10,000 – 8,000 cal yr B.P.
24
Figure 12. Five unique modified flake tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-
1076. PN # 216-1 top left and 223-1 top right. PN #s 460-1, 410-1, and 292-1 bottom left to right.
25
Figure 13. Three modified cobble fragments, working edges facing up; surface collected from the
hillside component of Native American site VT-CH-1076. PN # 716-1 top, 717-1 bottom left, 721-
1 bottm right.
26
When compared with known Early Archaic sites such as VT-CH-230, VT-CH-486,
and VT-CH-490, excavated in the context of the Chittenden County Circumferential
Highway (CCCH), some noteworthy analogies can be drawn to the hillside component of
site VT-CH-1076. As an excerpt from Mandel’s 2005 Calkins Site report explains;
The processing tool assemblages of the CCCH sites are comprised of an
array of scraping, cutting, and shaving implements, all of which are derived from
local lithic sources…Durable raw materials such as quartz and quartzite appear to
have been the preferred raw material choice, most likely for their hardness and
fracturing qualities. Comparison of each site’s scraping implements bears out that
all of the tools contain steep angled working edges, ranging from 70-90 degrees.
The tools appear to have been minimally to moderately prepared, with the removal
of only several or more flakes to define the tool; giving many a half-prismatic
shape. The shapes of the tools range from ovoid, triangular to rectangular.
Finally, the topographic similarities of these, and other Early Archaic Period sites,
deserves mention. As stated in the Calkins Site report, VT-CH-230 occupies part of a
prominent hillside east of Indian Brook, while one of the two loci identified at site VT-CH-
490 crosses the crest of a bedrock knoll. In addition, archaeological investigations at the
Juniper Ridge site, VT-CH-974, identified an Early Archaic Swanton Corner-notched
projectile point and possible subterranean “pit house” situated slope-side within the Allen
Brook watershed in Milton, Vermont. In the 2005 Juniper Ridge Site report, Mandel
observes;
Similarities between VT-CH-974 and an Early Archaic habitation site
studied in Connecticut can be seen. For example, both sites are situated on sandy
hillsides that have southern exposure, and overlook wetlands or small streams. The
results of the Connecticut studies indicate that subterranean “pit houses” were dug
into the hillside and were most likely covered with a structure. [At VT-CH-974],
the recovery of several lithic tools that could have been used for
processing/construction of a structure suggest that some type of heavy duty
processing was undertaken.
In summary, though no temporally diagnostic artifacts or features attributable to
the Early Archaic period have been recovered at site VT-CH-1076 as of yet, the strong
correlations to its hillside component and processing style artifacts remain a compelling
topic for future study.
Also recovered from site VT-CH-1076 were three steep faceted uniface “scrapers”
(PN #’s 217-1, 230-1, and 470-1). Though this tool type is often found among Early
Archaic Period sites, it is not exclusive to them. The three scraping implements featured
below differ from the aforementioned modified fragments in that they exhibit more
intensive preparation, resulting in more uniformly shaped tools (Figure 14). PN #’s 217-1
and 470-1 are both roughly ovoid in shape, with flat ventral surfaces and moderate to heavy
preparation around 90% of the tool’s edge. PN # 230-1 exhibits a flat ventral surface and
unifacial preparation, yet it appears to be fragmented from a larger tool. In general, all
three “scrapers” are moderately robust, and were likely used to process hard materials like
wood or bone.
27
Figure 14. Three unifacially flaked scraping implements surface collected from Native American
site VT-CH-1076. Left to right; PN # 217-1, 230-1, and 470-1.
Finally, one utilized fragment, PN # 438-1, was identified during analysis of the
VT-CH-1076 artifact assemblage. The fragment was likely removed from a larger cobble
based on the presence of some original cobble cortex. It exhibits several flake scars related
to previous reduction attempts, but there is one very sharp edge that is lightly serrated,
suggesting that the object was briefly employed for cutting purposes.
On a most basic level, the presence of such a variety of tools and tool types at site
VT-CH-1076 suggests that food and/or material processing activities occurred throughout
the site’s occupation. Furthermore, it stands to reason that heating and/or cooking activities
also occurred. This is supported by the recovery of six fire-affected rock fragments in the
area. Partially intact fire hearth features are most likely present at the site, but none were
identified due to the fact that subsurface test pit excavations were not employed during the
Phase I survey of this area.
28
Area 2, VT-CH-1077
Area 2 occupies a sandy terrace formation located southeast of Area 1. It is
bounded by an active Potash Brook tributary to the north, and a prominent hill which
defines much of the project’s interior to the south and west. The foot of this hill marks the
southwestern extent of a larger terrace formation containing archaeological sites VT-CH-
130, 255, 429, 430 and the recently identified VT-CH-1077 (Figure 15). Native American
site VT-CH-1077 was recorded during the Phase I survey of Area 2 on the basis of a large
concentration of artifacts scattered across its plowed surface. The density of artifacts was
greatest along the northern edge of the landform, nearest the Potash Brook tributary, and
generally decreased to the south (see Figure 9).
Based on laboratory analysis, the artifacts recovered at site VT-CH-1077 include
213 lithic debitage specimens, 9 flaked-tools, 4 fire-affected rock fragments, and 2
unmodified and/or questionable-status lithic samples. In terms of the lithic material types
present, the debitage and flaked-tool assemblage consists predominantly of quartzite
(98.2%), followed by undifferentiated chert (1.8%).
The tools identified within the assemblage include three temporally diagnostic
projectile points, one broken projectile point tip, one bifacially flaked tool, one utilized
flake, two modified fragments, and one unifacial scraping implement (Figures 16 and 17).
Looking at the temporally diagnostic projectile points, two out of the three are
Levanna types, dateable to the Late Woodland Period ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P. One
Levanna (PN # 124-1) is derived from a fine-grained waxy chert which, based on its
fossilized inclusions and flat cortical surface, is believed to come from a suspected bedrock
outcrop somewhere in Addison or Rutland County, Vermont. The second (PN # 343-1) is
made from quartzite, it is relatively small in size, and has two broken tangs. Finally, the
third projectile point (PN # 316-1), classified as part of the Normanskill typology with a
blend of Orient Fishtail-like basal attributes, is dateable to the Late Archaic Period, ca.
6,000 – 3,000 cal. yrs. B.P.
In terms of the broken projectile point tip, its lack of an intact base and midsection
precludes any effort to determine its type (PN # 138-1). On the basis of its fairly
symmetrical excurvate edges, however, the tip does not appear to belong to the triangular
Levanna typology.
PN # 377-1 is a bifacially-flaked tool fragment with an excurvate working edge.
There is no evidence of usewear on the tool which may suggest that it broke during
manufacture. Judging by the tool’s sharp serrated edge and relatively thick cross-section,
it likely articulates with a broken cutting or processing implement rather than a projectile
point.
PN # 360-1 is a moderately sized reduction flake with one sharp edge exhibiting
classic evidence of usewear along its length. Though this utilized flake tool was likely
handheld for its cutting or shaving purposes, its smaller opposing edge could have easily
been hafted to a wood shaft for greater leverage.
29
Figure 15. Map showing the broad terrace formation shared by pre-Contact era Native American
sites VT-CH-130, 255, 429,430, and 1077, located along Potash Brook in South Burlington,
Chittenden County, Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
30
Figure 16. From left to right; two temporally diagnostic Levanna type projectile points (PN #’s 343-1 and 124-1), one Normanskill type projectile
point (PN # 316-1), and one projectile point tip (PN # 138-1), surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1077.
31
Figure 17. Assortment of quartzite tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-
1077. Bottom left to right; one bifacially flaked tool fragment (PN # 377-1), one utilized flake
(PN # 360-1), and one modified fragment (PN # 337-1); working edges facing left. Top left to
right; one unifacially-flaked scraping implement (PN # 125-1), and one modified debitage
fragment (PN # 367-1); working edges facing up.
32
PN # 337-1 is a somewhat equivocal modified fragment tool. It exhibits a single
flake scar on its ventral surface, and possibly two additional modification attempts along
one edge. Minimally this artifact represents a limited attempt at fashioning a scraper-like
tool. Similarly, PN # 367-1 is another debitage fragment exhibiting limited modification.
One corner of the artifact has been subtly formed into a working edge, however the
awkward shape of the fragment seems as though it would inhibit functionality.
Finally, PN # 125-1 is a unifacially-flaked scraping implement with a distinct hinge
fracture opposite its working edge. Though there is little evidence to determine when or
how the fracture occurred, it remains a fortuitously shaped break. Ultimately, the fracture
allows the tool to be held comfortably between the thumb and index finger of the right
hand, with the working edge ideally positioned for light to moderate scraping activities.
Similar to site VT-CH-1076, the artifact assemblage from VT-CH-1077 is
indicative of lithic tool production, refurbishment, material processing activities, and
probably heating and/or cooking activities as well. Ultimately, despite their separation by
a small tributary, and separate site designations, it remains highly likely that both site areas
share components of the same occupation(s). This is further supported by the presence of
Levanna type projectile points identified from both locations.
Area 3
At Area 3, the Phase I surface collection resulted in the recovery of two probable
fire-affected rock fragments along the western extent of the plowed field (see Figure 10).
Both fragments were recovered near the margins of a shallow bedrock exposure.
Ultimately, no definitive pre-Contact era Native American artifacts were identified in the
near vicinity and the cultural status of the fire-affected rock fragments remains uncertain.
As such, an official site number was not assigned to this location.
Areas 4 and 5, VT-CH-1078
As a result of the Phase I surface collection within sensitive Areas 4 and 5, site VT-
CH-1078 was identified on the basis of multiple low-density artifact scatters spanning both
areas. In total, twenty-two lithic specimens were recovered from five roughly defined
activity areas (see Figure 10). Based on laboratory analysis, the artifacts recovered at site
VT-CH-1078 include 7 lithic debitage flakes, 1 debitage fragment, 6 lithic flaked tools,
and 8 unmodified and/or questionable-status lithic samples. In terms of the material types
present, the debitage and flaked-tool assemblage consists predominantly of chert (57.14%),
followed by quartzite (21.43%) and quartz (21.43%).
The tools identified from site VT-CH-1078 include one utilized flake, two
bifacially-flaked tools, and three modified fragments (Figures 18 and 19).
The utilized flake tool (PN # 102-1) is a medium sized chert flake exhibiting subtle
micro-flake usewear on its two sharpest edges. Based on the style and extent of its usewear,
the flake was likely employed briefly to cut soft material.
33
Figure 18. Assortment of tools surface collected from Native American site VT-CH-1078. Top left to right; one utilized flake (PN # 102-1), and
one biface fragment (PN # 117-1); working edges facing up. Bottom left to right; one modified chert fragment (PN # 121-1), one modified quartzite
fragment (PN # 103-1); and one quartz biface (PN # 119-1); working edges facing up.
34
Figure 19. PN # 118-1; modified chert fragment surface collected from site VT-CH-1078, within
the O’Brien Home Farm property in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont.
35
PN # 117-1 is a chert biface fragment with rough outer cortex on one facet and
moderate weathering across its worked surfaces. The degree to which it has been worked
suggests that it may have been used and even retouched, then likely discarded. In
contrast, PN # 119-1 is a quartz biface with minimal preparation or work on any of its
edges. Ultimately, the bifacially-flaked tools appear to represent processing implements,
yet, based on their vague morphology it is difficult to assign a specific style or function to
either one.
PN #103-1 is a modified quartzite cobble with apparent outer cortex on one facet.
Its working edge appears to have been expediently modified and unifacially prepared.
Based on its robust shape, the tool seems best suited for moderate to heavy chopping or
scraping activities. PN # 118-1 is a relatively large modified chert fragment. The dorsal
surface of the tool is almost entirely intact outer cortex, whereas the ventral surface has
been worked substantially. The fragment is triangular in shape and two of its edges show
definite modification. The “hypotenuse” edge contains a distinctly worked notch that was
likely used for scraping or shaving activities, and the sharp opposing edge was probably
prepared for cutting activities. Finally, the third modified fragment (PN # 121-1) resembles
a modern block plane tool. It appears to be derived from bedrock based on its three flat,
slate-like surfaces, though the material is clearly chert. Its humped dorsal surface is mostly
smooth, intact cortex. One edge exhibits shallow unifacial modification and seems ideal
for scraping, shaving, and/or planing activities.
In general, the artifacts recovered from site VT-CH-1078 differ greatly from those
represented at sites VT-CH-1076 and 1077. Most notably, site VT-CH-1078 demonstrates
a significant reduction in debitage density and use of quartzite material. Furthermore, the
ratio of tools to lithic debitage is significantly greater at site VT-CH-1078, possibly
indicating a greater emphasis on actual tool usage rather than manufacture and/or
refurbishment.
Upon completing the Phase I surface investigations, UVM CAP archaeologists
turned to test pit sampling within select portions of Areas 4 and 5 in an effort to uncover
more specific information regarding the content and context(s) of site VT-CH-1078. To
start, 15, 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were excavated along the wooded terrace
formation east of Area 5 (see Figure 10). The test pits were spaced at 5 m (16 ft) intervals
along four linear transects designated Transects 1-4. Despite their location on an
archaeologically sensitive landform overlooking the confluence of Potash Brook and one
of its seasonal drainages, no additional artifacts were recovered from the subsurface
sampling of this location.
Finally, Transect 5 was established along a prominent hilltop in the northwest
corner of Area 4. A total of three test pits were excavated at 10 m (33 ft) intervals across
its length. The purpose of sampling this location was to better understand the local soil
structure and to better contextualize several questionable artifacts recovered in the
immediate vicinity. Ultimately, no additional artifacts were recovered.
Following a review of the archaeological Phase I results it was decided that Areas
5, 4, 3, and the southern half of Area 2 represented the best options to be cleared for
industrial and/or commercial development. To clear these areas, a limited Phase II
evaluation was recommended in an effort to maximize developable space and minimize
36
impact to potentially significant cultural resources. Specifically, the Phase II evaluation
would attempt to provide 1) a better assessment of potentially significant artifact deposits
in the southwest portion of site VT-CH-1078, and 2) to appropriately determine and buffer
the southern limits of site VT-CH-1077. Based on this plan, the densest portion of site VT-
CH-1077 and the entirety of site VT-CH-1076 would be preserved and protected.
PHASE II EVALUATION OF SITE VT-CH-1078
For the purposes of the Phase II evaluation at site VT-CH-1078, a total of 10, 50 x
50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were excavated within and around a small artifact cluster in the
southwest portion of Area 4. The test pits were spaced at 5 m (16 ft) intervals across one
linear transect, designated Transect 6, and one cluster designated Cluster 1 (Figure 20). As
a result of the Phase II evaluation in this area, three additional pre-Contact era Native
American artifacts were recovered. One chert debitage flake and one fire-affected rock
fragment were surface-collected immediately east of Transect 6, Test Pit 4, and a single
quartzite debitage flake was recovered from 20-30 cm (8-12 in) below the ground surface
within the upper plow-disturbed stratum of Cluster 1, Test Pit 2 (see Figure 20). Although
several other lithic specimens were recovered from within this test pit, they were later
determined to be non-cultural. Based on the limited subsurface content in this area, no
further testing was required.
PHASE II EVALUATION OF SITE VT-CH-1077
To review, Native American site VT-CH-1077 was identified during the Phase I
survey on the basis of a large concentration of artifacts collected from within sensitive Area
2. The density of artifacts was greatest along the northern edge of the landform overlooking
a tributary to Potash Brook. The artifact densities generally decreased to the south. Based
on discussions with project engineers, a majority of the site would naturally be preserved
within and adjacent to the established wetland buffer. The southern extent of the site
however, remains in an area intended for development. As such, limited Phase II testing
was recommended to better establish a southern boundary for the site, and to clear, if
possible, approximately one half of the plowed field for development.
To initiate the Phase II evaluation of site VT-CH-1077, a horizontal metric grid was
established over the project parcel at a declination of N 345° E, within which all surface
artifacts and test pit locations were assigned a metric grid coordinate. In an effort to
adequately sample the landform, a total of 21, 50 x 50 cm (20 x 20 in) test pits were
established at 5 m (16 ft) intervals along three linear parallel transects. Each transect was
spaced 10 m apart, covering the southern half of Area 2 (Figure 21).
As a result of the Phase II evaluation in this area, three of the twenty-one test pits,
or 14%, yielded additional cultural content (see Figure 21). The artifacts included one
probable fire-affected rock fragment, and six lithic debitage flakes. The six debitage flakes
were recovered from two test pits located along the northernmost line of testing. One test
pit yielded a single quartzite debitage flake from 0-10 cm (0-4 in) below the ground surface.
37
Figure 20. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II testing within the southwestern
locus of Native American site VT-CH-1078 in South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont
(source: vcgi.org).
38
Figure 21. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II grid interval testing along the
southern margins of Native American site VT-CH-1077 in South Burlington, Chittenden County,
Vermont (source: vcgi.org).
39
The other, located 5 m (16 ft) to the east, yielded five flakes from two separate
levels of excavation. These included one quartzite and two chert debitage flakes from 0-
10 cm (0-4 in) below the ground surface, and two quartzite flakes recovered from 10-20
cm (4-8 in) below the ground surface. Finally, the fire-affected rock fragment was
recovered from 0-10 cm below the ground surface in a test pit located approximately 14 m
(46 ft) further to the southeast (see Figure 21). Ultimately, all of the Phase II artifacts were
recovered from within the upper plow-disturbed horizon.
During the Phase I and II studies, all test pits were excavated in 10 cm vertical
levels with respect to natural stratigraphic soil horizons. In general, the excavations
terminated at depths ranging from 30-50 cm (12-20 in) below the ground surface, or at least
10 cm into intact B or BC substrata. During the Phase I survey, all excavated soil was
sieved through 6.4 mm (1/4 in) mesh hardware cloth, whereas the Phase II evaluation
utilized 3.2 mm (1/8 in) mesh to achieve a finer sampling standard. All recovered cultural
deposits were collected in re-sealable acid-free plastic bags labeled according to their
provenience number and project location. Stratigraphic soil profiles were recorded for
every test pit according to both texture and Munsell chart colors. All measurements and
project area excavations were recorded using a Topcon GTS-230 total station with
handheld data recorder, or with metric tapes, Brunton compass, and a Trimble Geo XT
GPS unit.
In the laboratory, all recovered materials were cleaned, cataloged, and entered into
a computer database, using the UVM CAP standard descriptive categories and format. All
field notes, photographs, records, artifacts and lab data have been filed and are being
temporarily stored at the University of Vermont Consulting Archaeology Program until
they can ultimately be transferred to the Vermont Archaeology Heritage Center.
40
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Phase I and II investigations of five archaeologically sensitive areas within the
proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project resulted in the identification of three
pre-Contact era Native American sites. The sites are designated VT-CH-1076, 1077, and 1078 in
the Vermont Archaeological Inventory. Following from several discussions presented throughout
this report it becomes evident that these sites are not isolated events. Rather, they fit into a long
series of Native American habitation within the Potash Brook watershed. As reflected by the
artifact analysis of sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077, not only do they represent multiple
periods of occupation themselves, they are likely components of a larger prehistoric settlement
pattern. For reference, known sites within the immediate area range from the Early Archaic period,
ca. 10,000 – 8,000 cal yr B.P., through the Late Woodland Period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P.
In terms of Native American site VT-CH-1076, a total of 271 lithic debitage flakes, 2
debitage fragments, 19 flaked-tools, and 6 fire-affected rock fragments were recovered as a result
of the Phase I investigation. Minimally, this site can be attributed to the Late Woodland Period,
ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P., as determined by the presence of a temporally diagnostic Levanna
type projectile point. Still other tool types within the assemblage, though not definitively
diagnostic, seem to suggest the presence of older components. The style of processing implements
recovered from the hillside portion of site VT-CH-1076 hint at Early Archaic Period occupation
(though not definitively), whereas the stemmed projectile preform recovered from the lower
terrace can be compared to Susquehanna or Adena types known from the Late Archaic or Early
Woodland Periods.
At Native American site VT-CH-1077, a total of 216 lithic debitage flakes, 2 debitage
fragments, 9 flaked-tools, and 5 fire-affected rock fragments were recovered as a result of the
Phase I and II investigations. Temporally diagnostic projectile points identified within the
assemblage include two Levanna types dateable to the Late Woodland Period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal.
yrs. B.P., and one Normanskill type dateable to the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal. yrs.
B.P.
Broadly based on their artifact content and spatial proximity, it appears likely that Native
American sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 overlapped on several fronts, both in terms of
space and time. One notable continuity between both sites is the nearly exclusive use and
abundance of regionally available quartzite raw material; markedly different from that of site VT-
CH-1078. Furthermore, the presence of Late Woodland Period Levanna type projectile points at
both sites suggests possible contemporaneous occupation.
Finally, within both sites, the tools were recovered among larger concentrations of
debitage, typical of lithic reduction and tool production activity areas. Other evident activities
include heating and/or cooking as suggested by the presence of fire-affected rock, and non-lithic
material manipulation based on the presence of various processing implements. When viewed
collectively, the elements of each site most closely correlate to that of base-camp style
establishment(s), and reflect repeated occupation over the course of several thousand years.
At site VT-CH-1078, the artifact assemblage was far less concentrated and it was
composed mostly of chert material. In total, 9 lithic debitage flakes, 1 debitage fragment, 1 fire-
affected rock fragment, and 6 flaked tools were recovered as a result of the Phase I and II
investigations. Based on the low debitage to tool ratio at site VT-CH-1078, it appears that hunting
and resource extraction activities were more prevalent versus flint knapping and camp-based
41
activities like those found at sites VT-CH-1076 and 1077. In the end, no temporally diagnostic
artifacts or features were identified at site VT-CH-1078, and therefore, the site can only be
attributed to the general prehistoric range ca. 13,000 – 400 cal yr B.P.
Following a review of the three identified sites, it was determined that the densest portion
of site VT-CH-1077 and the entirety of site VT-CH-1076 should be preserved and protected based
on their potential significance and National Register eligibility. Conversely, it was decided that
the areas containing site VT-CH-1078, and an area immediately south of site VT-CH-1077,
represented the best options for the proposed industrial and/or commercial development. The
archaeological Phase II evaluations carried out within these locations ultimately allowed for this
determination. Specifically, due to the poor context and limited number of artifacts identified at
site VT-CH-1078, the site was determined to be not significant and therefore ineligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
At pre-Contact Native American site VT-CH-1077, the archaeological Phase II evaluation
resulted in the recovery of minimal additional cultural content across the southern extent of the
site area. Based on these results, a boundary for the site was determined, and a protective buffer
was established roughly along the southern limits of the densest portion of the known site. In order
to ensure the preservation of potentially significant cultural deposits, the area considered clear for
development was mapped and displayed in green on Figure 22. Any proposed developments
extending into the northern portion of Area 2 would require clearance through an archaeological
Phase III site mitigation. In the event of Phase III mitigation, a proposal would be submitted
outlining the extent and scope of the work to be conducted.
In summary, as a result of the Archaeological Phase I and II investigations within the
proposed O’Brien Home Farm property development project, sensitive Areas 5, 4, 3, and the
southern half of Area 2, were ultimately cleared for construction. All levels of investigation were
conducted as part of Vermont’s ACT 250 permit application process, and followed the guidelines
established by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation.
42
Figure 22. Map showing the location of archaeological Phase II grid interval testing along the southern
margins of Native American site VT-CH-1077, and the resulting area cleared for disturbance marked in
green (source: vcgi.org).
43
REFERENCES
Bumstead, Pamela M.
1980 VT-CH-94: Vermont’s Earliest Known Agricultural Experiment Station.
Man in the Northeast 19:73-82.
Doherty, Prudence, Kathleen Kenny, Geoffrey Mandel and James Petersen
2000 Phase 1-2 Archaeological Investigations for the Jackson Gore
Development, Okemo Mountain Resort, Ludlow, Windsor County,
Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont,
Report No. 276.
Doherty, Prudence, Robert A. Sloma and Peter A. Thomas
1995 Phase I Archaeological Site Identification Survey for Wallingford BRS
0137(13), Sample Areas 1 and 2 and Determination of National Register
of Eligibility for VT-RU-264, Wallingford, Vermont. Consulting
Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Report No. 142.
Doll, Charles G., Ed.
1961 Centennial Geologic Map of Vermont. Vermont Geological Survey, Montpelier
Haviland, William A., and Marjorie Power
1994 The Original Vermonters: Native Inhabitants, Past and Present.
University Press of New England, Hanover.
Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, Ellen R. Cowie, Arthur E. Speiss, Louise Basa,
Robert E. Stuckenrath
1990 Early Woodland Period Ceremonialism in the Far Northeast: A View
From the Boucher Cemetery. Archaeology of Eastern North America
20:125-149.
Heckenberger, Michael J., James B. Petersen, and Nancy Asch Sidell
1992 Early Evidence of Maize Agriculture in the Connecticut River Valley of Vermont.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 20:125-149.
Howland, William, G.
1974 In Vermont Land Capacity. Vermont State Planning Office, Montpelier,
Vermont.
Jacobs, Eldridge
1950 The Physical Features of Vermont. Vermont State Development Commission,
Montpelier, Vermont.
44
Loring, Stephen
1985 Boundary Maintenance, Mortuary Ceremonialism and Resource Control in the
Early Woodland: Three Cemetery Sites in Vermont. Archaeology in Eastern
North America 13:93-127.
Mandel, Geoffrey A. and John G. Crock
2005 Archaeological Phase I Site Identification Survey of the Proposed Juniper Ridge
Development Project, Milton, Chittenden County, Vermont. Consulting
Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, (Draft) Report No. 420
2005 Archaeological Phase I Survey, Phase II Evaluation, and Phase II/III Evaluation
for the Calkins Property Project, South Burlington and Shelburne, Chittenden
County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont,
(Draft) Report No. 444
2006 Archaeological Phase I Site Identification Survey and Phase II Site Evaluation at
the O’Brien Home Farm Site, VT-CH-878, for the Proposed O’Brien Home Farm
Development Project, South Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont. Consulting
Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, Report No. 331
2007 Archaeological Phase I Site Identification Survey for the Proposed Burlington
North Plant Inverted Siphon Project, Burlington, Chittenden County, Vermont.
Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont, (Draft) Report No. 479
Nelson, Jeffrey A. and Mary M. Nealon
2003 Potash Brook Watershed Restoration Plan. Pioneer Environmental Associates,
LLC. Middlebury, Vermont.
Pease, J.
1997 Potash Brook Stormwater Management Evaluation. Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation. Agency of Natural Resources. Waterbury,
Vermont.
Peebles, G.
2002 Guidelines for Conducting Archaeology in Vermont. Division for Historic
Preservation, Montpelier, Vermont.
Petersen, James B.
1980 Middle Woodland Ceramics of the Winooski Site, A.D. 1-1000.
Vermont Archaeological Society New Series Monograph 1.
Petersen, James B., and Marjory W. Power
1983 The Winooski Site and the Middle Woodland Period in the Northeast. Submitted
to the Interagency Archaeological Services Program, National Park Service,
Philadelphia, PA. Copy on file at UVM CAP, Burlington, VT.
45
Petersen, James B., Jack A. Wolford, Nathan D. Hamilton, Laurie L. Labar and Michael
Heckenberger
1985 Archaeological Investigations in the Shelburne Pond Locality, Chittenden
County, Vermont. Annals of Carnegie Museum 54(3):23-75.
Thomas, Peter A.
1986 Discerning Some Spatial Characteristics of Small, Short-term, Single
Occupation Sites: Implications for New England Archaeology. Man in the
Northeast 31:99-121.
1992 The Early and Middle Archaic Periods as Represented in Vermont. In Early
Holocene Occupation in Northern New England, edited by Brian S. Robinson,
James B. Petersen and Ann K. Robinson, pp. 187-203. Occasional Publications in
Maine Archaeology 9. Maine Historic Preservation Commission and Maine
Archaeological Society, Augusta.
2000 Contributions to Understanding Vermont Prehistory: The Chittenden County
Circumferential Highway Archaeological Studies. Consulting Archaeology
Program, Report No. 204.
Thomas, Peter A., and Brian S. Robinson
1983 The John’s Bridge Site: VT-FR-69, An Early Archaic Period Site in Northwestern
Vermont. Vermont Archaeological Society, Burlington.
Thomas, Peter A. and Geraldine P. Kochan
1987 Archaeological Reconnaisance Survey Adams Park South Brownell Road,
Williston Road. Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont, Report No.
87.
Thomas, Peter A., and Prudence Doherty
1981 Archaeological Resource Management Study of the Lower Winooski River
Watershed. University of Vermont Department of Anthropology, Report No. 37.
Submitted to the USDA, Soil Conservation Service.
Thomas, Peter A., R. Scott Dillon, and Prudence Doherty
1985 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Chittenden County
Circumferential Highway, Volume III: Site Description and Technical
Information. Consulting Archaeology Program, University of Vermont,
Report No. 52.
Toney, Joshua R., and John Crock
2006 Archaeological Phase I Site Identification Survey, Phase II Site Evaluation, and
Phase III Data Recovery within the Arbor Gardens Development Project,
Colchester, Chittenden County, Vermont. Consulting Archaeology Program,
University of Vermont, Report No. 396
46
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
1989 Soil Survey of Chittenden County, Vermont. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Vermont Division for Historic Preservation
1991 Criteria for Listing on the State Register of Historic Places. Division for Historic
Preservation, Montpelier, Vermont. Copy on file at the Consulting Archaeology
Program, University of Vermont.
1991 Vermont Historic Preservation Plan: Vermont’s Prehistoric Cultural Heritage.
Agency of Development and Community Affairs VDHP, Montpelier, Vermont.
47
APPENDIX 1: TEST PIT PROFILES
Key
Ap Plow zone, disturbed layer
Fill Soil transplanted or deposited
from another location.
Bs Oxidized soil, minerals leached from the Ap
B Horizon which has been physically and
chemically weathered.
C Subsoil horizon; parent material from which
soil developed.
fsl Fine sandy loam
sil Silt loam
cl Clay
lo Loam
s Sand
si Silt
dk Dark
lt Light
v Very
f Fine
m Medium
c Coarse
brn Brown
brnsh Brownish
gry Gray
grysh Grayish
ol Olive
yllw Yellow
ylwsh Yellowish
48
49
50
51
52
APPENDIX 2: PROJECT PERSONNEL
Principal Investigator: John G. Crock, Ph.D.
Research Supervisor: Andrew M. Fletcher
Field Crew Members: Andrew M. Fletcher
Geoffrey A. Mandel
Jeremy W. Ripin
Robert C. Ingraham
David Van Deusen
Grace E. Cameron
Eric J. Schuetz
Kevin C. Lambert
Kathleen M. Kenny
Laboratory Staff: Andrew M. Fletcher
Geoffrey A. Mandel
Kevin C. Lambert
Field Photography: Andrew M. Fletcher
Cartography: Andrew M. Fletcher
John G. Crock, Ph.D.
Editor: John G. Crock, Ph.D.
Report Production: Andrew M. Fletcher
John G. Crock, Ph.D.
53
APPENDIX 3: GLOSSARY
Activity Area – A section of an archaeological site in which a particular activity, such as tool
making or food preparation, occurred. Defined by the presence of specific artifacts produced by
the activity, and distribution in a particular spatial arrangement as a result of the activity.
Alluvium – Soil or sediments deposited by a river or other running water, typically made up of a
variety of materials, including silt, clay, sand, and gravel.
Archaeology – The study of past peoples through recovery and analysis of artifacts left behind,
and interpretation of the spatial setting in which their artifacts are found.
Artifact – An object shaped or modified by human activity.
Contact – In reference to the era of initial widespread European interaction with Native
Americans, typically identified ca. 1492-1600 A.D.
Curate – The act of taking care of, being responsible for, or storing an object or artifact.
Debitage - Refers to the totality of waste material produced during lithic reduction and the
production of chipped stone tools. See also flake.
Diagnostic – Refers to an attribute or combination of attributes associated with an artifact which
allows it to be classified or identified with a specific time period.
Flake – Piece of waste material produced during manufacture of stone tools. See also Debitage.
Lithic – Pertaining to or made of stone.
Occupation – Refers to the act of settlement, also the time period of human activity in a given
area.
Pre-contact – In reference to the era preceding initial widespread European interaction with
Native Americans, typically identified ca. 9000 B.C. – 1492 A.D.
Provenience – Source or origin. Typically refers to location in a given archaeological context.
Stratified (Stratigraphy) – In reference to the layering or deposition of soils.
Subsistence Strategy – The means by which people/cultures generate or obtain resources critical
to sustenance and survival.
54
APPENDIX 4: PUBLIC INFORMATION SUMMARY
On the dates of November 10th and 11th, 2009, the UVM CAP completed a series of
archaeological studies for the proposed O’Brien Home Farm development project on Kimball
Avenue in South Burlington, Chittenden County Vermont. The studies included an initial
Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA), a Phase I site identification survey, and a limited
Phase II evaluation.
During the initial Archaeological Resources Assessment it was determined that much of
the project area was likely to contain prehistoric cultural deposits. This determination was based
on the project’s location within the Potash Brook watershed, and on its proximity to several known
archaeological sites. Following this assessment, an archaeological Phase I survey was carried out,
resulting in the identification of three previously unknown pre-Contact era Native American sites.
The sites are designated VT-CH-1076, VT-CH-1077, and VT-CH-1078 in the Vermont
Archaeological Inventory (VAI).
Native American sites VT-CH-1076 and VT-CH-1077 were identified on the basis of two
high-density artifact concentrations located on either side of a Potash Brook tributary in the
northern portion of the project parcel. A thorough analysis of their respective assemblages
revealed a diverse inventory of stone tools and tool types. In addition to processing tools such as
scrapers, choppers, and cutting implements, both sites possessed multiple projectile points as well.
The presence of temporally diagnostic projectile points, including three Levanna types, one
Normanskill type, and one possible Susquehanna or Adena preform, indicates that these sites were
occupied at various times minimally ranging from the Late Archaic Period, ca. 6,000 – 3,000 cal.
yrs. B.P. through the Late Woodland Period, ca. 1,000 – 400 cal. yrs. B.P. Ultimately, based on
their artifact densities, and various temporal affiliations, both sites were deemed potentially
significant and potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. As
such, their respective locations were protected and preserved via the establishment of an
archaeological buffer.
Native American site VT-CH-1078 was identified on the basis of a diffuse collection of
artifacts across the broad southern portion of the project parcel. Though multiple tool types were
recovered, no temporally diagnostic artifacts or features were identified at the site. As such, site
VT-CH-1078 can only be attributed to the general prehistoric range ca. 13,000 – 400 cal yr B.P.
Ultimately, due to poor context and limited artifacts at site VT-CH-1078, the site was determined
to be not significant and therefore ineligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP).