[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
A MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PREHISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN RHODE ISLAND"S COASTAL ZONE VOLUME I Z-1 pill: Nx F4 0 Jz Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission Providence, Rhode Island August 1982 F 79 GRANT NO. NA-80-AA-D-CZ121 M36 1982 TASK 6.5 - HISTORICAL PRESERVATION V*, COMMISSION COVER: Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, Vol. 25, Nos. 3 ond 4, 1964, From J. F. Lafitau; Mootirs dcs Sauvages Ameriquains, Vol. 2, Paris, 1724. The preparation of this publication was financed in part by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583). END OF YEAR PERFORMANCE REPORT, Task 6.5 ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES By: Rhode Isliand Historical Preservation Commission 150 Benefit Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903 For: Office of Coastal Zone Management Washington County Government Center Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879 Task 6.5 Award #NA-80-AA-D-CZ121 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Summary Introduction (Task 6.5, Subject areas 1, 9, 13) ................ I 11. Prehistoric Resources in Rhode Island's Coastal Zone 2.1 Site'Designations .................................... 3 2.1.1 Sites on the National Register ...................... 3 2.1.2 Sites in the process of being considered for listing on the National Register .............. 4 2. 1.3 Sites potentially eligible to the National Register ................................. 4 2.1A Sites not eligible to be listed on the National Register ............................. 5 111. Predictive Modeling on Jamestown Island (Task 6.5, subject areas 1,9) ..................... 8 3.'1 Overview ............................................ 8 3.2 Predictive Models for Prehistoric Settlements: the Jamestown Archeological District, by E. Pierre Morenon ................................. 8 IV. Landowner Involvement (Task 6.5, Subject area 13) ...................... 16 V. Summary ............................................ 21 VI. Bibliography ....................................... 22 Figure 1: Prehistoric Sites Located Within the Coastal Zone of Rhode Island ..................................... 6 2: Jamestown Archeological District ...................... 9 3: Projected Lithic Artifact Counts ........... .... 15 4: Moody Site: Lithic Contours ........................... 17 5: Moody Site: Lithics, shell, and bone ................. 19 6: Moody Site: Feature Profiles ......................... 20 Table 1: Site Designations ..................................... 3 2: Prehistoric Sites added to Rhode Island's Coastal Zone Inventory during July 1, 1981-June 30, 1982.... 7 3: Correlation Coefficients (r) and summary statistics for Environmental Variables used to predict Settlement Locations for sixteen random 100 meter areas ............................................. 11 4: Correlation coefficients (r) for environmental variables and cultural variables for sixteen random 100 meter sample areas ..................... 12 5: Predictive Models for several categories of material culture .................................. 13 Appendix 1: 312 Review letter from Commission to Coastal Zone Management Program (Task 6.5, subject area 1) 2: Letter from Commission to Sycamore Cove Association (Task 6.5, Subject Area 13) 3: Commission Organization Chart (Task 6.5, Subject area 20) 4: Permits Processed, sites located; monitoring activities (Task 6.5, Subject area 2), iv, 1. SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The 1982 Coastal Resources Management Work Program contained provisions for archeological testing of permit applications submitted to the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC). These provisions enabled the Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission to identify and evaluate archeological sites within permit areas and to carry out pro- tective measures when appropriate. Commission involvement was initiated in 1980 and in 1981 a two- volume management plan for prehistoric resources was presented to the Council. A Management Man for Prehistoric Resources in Rhode Island's Coastal Zone included a map showing sites on the National Register of Historic Places, sites considered eligible, as well as other sites potentially eligible. Each site was described, the evaluation process was described, and a management plan was presented. In summary, the plan recommended that the Council: � continue the involvement of Commission archeologists in the permit review process; � use predictive model to discourage development in high resource sensitivity areas; � use existing mechanisms for resource preservation and conservation. These include landowner cooperation, conferring state landmark status or National Register status, and conducting archeological data recovery; e explore new mechanisms for resource preservation. These include construction of erosion-slowing devices such as gabions to reduce damage to sites caused by storms and tidal action. In addition to these activities, the Commission should continue to identify, evaluate, and protect coastal resources through its Federal and State review functions, its survey and planning grants, and through its ability to involve the public in preservation issues. The@plan emphasizes Council involvement. Without active Cbuncil review and support for the plan's components, the manaqement of archeological resources will be ineffective. The 1982 program had two major goals: (1) continue update of coastal site files. (2) refine predictive models. The refinement of predictive models is particularly important as program funding levels are decreased. The application of predictive models can reduce agency review time and help to discourage development in areas that might involve major recovery costs or redesign. This report presents an updated site inventory, a predictive model for the Great Creek area of'Jamestown Island, and provides a case study showing how the Com ission collects and processes information ml for use in developing site protection plans with landowners. In addition, it evaluates the 1982 implementation of the 1981 Management Plan, and highlights problems that were noted at the 312 review meeting in December, 1981 (appendix 1). -2- 11. PREHISTORIC RESOURCES IN RHODE ISLAND'S COASTAL ZONE 2.1 Site Designations The 1981 Management Plan classified prehistoric resources into four categories that represent the process by which sites are evaluated for National Register significance: (1) Sites on the Register, (2) sites in process of being considered for listing on the Register, (3) sites potentially eligible to the Register, and (4) sites not eligible to be listed on the Register. This last category, while containing sites that are not eligible to the Register, nonetheless contains noteworthy sites that are important for constructing locational models. All sites are initially placed in category 3, potentially eligible to the Register. As sites are evaluated they are placed in category 2, sites in the process of being considered for listing on the Register. Following evaluation, sites are placed into category 1, the National Register, if determined significant, or category 4 if determined not to be significant. Table I gives the number of coastal zone sites in each category as of June 30, 1982: Site designation Sites National Register 7 In process of being considered for listing on National Register 29 Sites potentially eligible for listing on National Register 118 Sites not eligible for the National Register 23 Total 177 Table 1: Site Designations 2.1.1 Sites on the Na tional Register These sites have received intensive investigations demonstrating that the site contains information important to the prehistory of the region. Most prehistorians working in the Narragansett Basin, and the northeastern United States interpret their findings within a cultural ecological framework that seeks to understand the relationship between the past environments and prehistoric populations. As such, any information contained in a site that pertains to what the environ- ment was and how past populations were adapted to it is important and contributes strongly in considering whether or not a site is eligible to the National Register. Such categories of information can include preserved floral and faunal remains, storage and cooking facilities, -3- and the tools used to procure, process, and consume food. Thus, for example, the Greenwich Cove site, RI 193, was listed on the National Register because it contained well-preserved, undisturbed examples of these data categories, featuring an extensive shell midden containing bone and plant material, human burials, and stone tools. It is extremely important that a site's contents be undisturbed; i.e., have good integrity. Without this condition, it is rare that a site, although it may contain suitable material, be considered for the National Register. Integrity, then, is an essential quality, and only sites possessing physical integrity are evaluated for the contributions-they can make to understanding how past populations interacted with their environment. 2.1.2 Sites in the process of being considered for listing on the National Register This grouping consists of two major subgroups of sites: (1) sites that Commission archeologists are currently evaluating for National Register status. It is very likely that these sites will eventually be placed on the National Register. All contain integrity and possess data categories necessary for Register listing. (2) sites that are being evaluated for Register status as part of the federal compliance process. Sites to be impacted or likely to be impacted by federal activities must be evaluated for National Register status before that activity proceeds. Thus, for example, the Jamestown Bridge_site, RI 711, located in the right-of-way of the proposed Jamestown Bridge replacement project, was evaluated and determined eligible to the National Register by the Secretary of Interior. Currently, no prehistoric sites in the coastal zone are in the second subgroup. All twenty-nine sites in this category are being evaluated by Commission archeologists and the liklihood of eventual listing is high. We strongly recommend that coastal zone managers and planners treat these sites as if they were on the Register and therefore take all possible measures to avoid damaging them. 2.1.3 Sites potentially eligible to National Register This is the largest single category of coastal zone sites. These sites have not yet been considered for National Register status and as a group possess a wide range of recorded information. For example, RI 106, log, 110, 221, 222, and 223 were recorded from a 1929 article in the Rhode Island Historical Society Collections. In the 1920s, these coastal,,zonf, sktes were known to be the locatio - ns of impressive archeological rerpa@i@@jjjby@,,.no_recorded information beyond their locations has sur*vived to theipresent'4 Until the Commission obtains enough information to evaluate the integrity and information content of these sites, they must be considered "potentially eligible." The Commission is seeking to narrow the list of "potentially eligible sites" by first ascertaining -4- their exact locations, and then conducting limited evaluations of integrity and information content. Such a study was done on the east side of Narragansett Bay in 1981 and several sites were determined not eligible for listing on the Register because they lacked integrity. 2.1.4 Sites not eligible t2 be listed on the National Register Sites in this category consist of two major kinds: those sites that have received intensive work and have been found-not to be of National Register quality (RI 112, 115, 116, and 268, for example) and those sites that were badly destroyed before information could be obtained (RI 289, for example). Since these sites are primarily important for the information on site location useful for formulating locational models, they need not be given high priority in planning decisions. However, their presence indicates the potential for other sites in the area, and therefore any plans for land modifying should be under- taken with care to detect and avoid any remaining sites in the area. 2.2 An Updated Inventory of Prehistoric Resources in Rhode Island's Coastal Zone This inventory lists sites located during the period July 1, 1981 through June 30, 1982. For a complete listing, the 1981 Management Plan should be consulted. Site descriptions are brief. Individuals interested in obtaining more information about specific sites should contact the Commission. Site locations are shown at two map scales. The first map (Figure 1), shows all.177 sites on a state overview map. The second representation shows site locations on U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle maps for sites recorded between July 1, 1981 and June 30, 1982. Because the locations on thesemaps are fairly precise, these maps are not for public dist-r-i-Fution. The serious threat of vandalism, discussed in the Management Plan necessitates that we require Commission approval prior to-_any public dissemination. For this reason, this map series is bound separately trom the main report. -5- f igure I North Cumberland Burrillville Smithfield Smithfield Lincoln Gloctster F. N.Proy Pawtucket Johnston Providenct Fostw Scituate East 0 Prov. z 2 z Cranston M est Warwick C -4 Coventry War- Bristol wick East West Greenwich Greenwich Uj Z >- verton CO lot Exeter North Ports- Ce mouth Kingstown Z Oftle E a Middletown Compton Richmond Hopkinton sowo.h 0 Kingstown New, Charlestown shofthorn w4sterly XC )v SOOAD PREHISTORIC SITES LOCATED WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE STATE of RHODE ISLAND 1982 Sites entered on the National Register of Historic Places Sites in the process of being considered for nomination to the National Register Sites that are potentially eligible to the National Register 0 Sites that are not eligible to ihe National Register 02 or *2 INDICATES A CLUSTER AND THE NUMBER OF SITES IN THAT CATEGORY 6 Site Quadrangle Designation 924 Quonochontaug 3 686 It 3 688 Kingston 4 925 4 826 4 922 3 801A 2 876 Narragansett' 4 928 Narragansett 3 691 3 914 4 875 3 95 3 874 Tiverton 3 503 East Greenwich 3 505 3 687 4 696 3 921 Bristol 4 693 Providence 4 929 11 3 Table '2 Prehistoric sites'added to Rhode Island's Coastal Zone inventory during July 1, 1981-June 30, 1982. -7- III. PREDICTIVE MODELING ON JAMESTOWN ISLAND 3.1 Overview An important component of the Management Plan is the development and application of predictive models. The 1982 final yearly report contains predictive models for several categories of material culture within the Jamestown Archeological District (Figure 2). The research involved in developing these models was conducted by Dr. E. Pierre Morenon at Rhode Island College with a survey and planning grant from the Commission. These models can be used to provide developers with information concerning the expected complexity of archeological resources in a given area. Dr. Morenon predicts that areas within the coastal zone containing fresh water are likely to contain sites of the greatest complexity. Because of their complexity these areas are likely to pose the most severe constraints to development. Morenon also recommends that a cross-section of environmental zones be preserved so that a full range of various site types can be preserved. 3.2 Predictive Models for Prehistoric Settlements: the Jamestown Archeological District* Three environmental variables were selected for predicting settle- ment locations. These variables are distance from fresh water, distance from salt water and slope percent. They were selected for a number of reasons: I . ease of coding and precision, 2. usefulness in developing predictive models for other locations, 3. previous research suggesting the strength of these variables and, 4. assumed relationship to resources critical to human utilization of the region. *Authored by Dr. E. Pierre Morenon,.Department of Anthropology and Geography, Rhode Island College. Research supported by a survey and planning grant from RIHPC. -8- Figure 2 300000 m East 301000 m M2000 m 303000 JM-14 R@ . . '. -1;1 1 ) -46010OU a Al North U) R, .1j. Jamestown Shores -4600000 m E, 7- AD < z 4r A-t -4509000 m z c JAMESTOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL . @W. DISTRICT BOUNDARYIwEr- V co- ....... 4508000 m Wp C"d Diff,h Islann ClUtch) jalm it"n MET 4507000 m Jamest wn Dutc cv, Island" t A p"'. 1.1a,d Har6or 0p, Jamestown Be-lhl.d 4506000 a Fox Hill Pb.d N A M E S 'T'D V N'*' Co "N CUT 4505000 m A VA 1. 11 .00 W@ Z< - Ja 9 All of these variables can be coded for any space in Rhode Island directly from USGS topographic maps. They also are relatively resistant to modification and hence are logically more useful than other variables which have been highly altered since aboriginal times. Present plant or animal distributions, 'for ex- ample, would seem to be weak variables under modern conditions in Rhode Island. -These important sources of information have been highly disturbed by recent ac- tivities. Perhaps more important precise locational information for these var- iables are not available for most areas in the state. The ability to gain quick access to and exert precise control over predic- tive variables should not be ignored. Topographic maps, for example, may even be preferable to aerial photographs when it comes to developing predictive models. All agencies and most individuals can find ready access to maps when more accurate photographs remain illusive. Because maps have been made in Rhode Island over a long-time period, it may even be able to extract precise environmental data for time periods preceeding the effects of major land modification in the region. The Beers (1870) or Everts and Richards (1895) maps for Rhode Island could repre- sent an interesting standardized reference for predictive modeling in this region. Earlier work in other regions (Morenon et al 1975) and well-established views in New England (Robinson 1980) sugges@_tl@a_t fresh water, salt water and topographic relief may be useful variables for inferring the location of pre- historic "sites". Although in many cases there is no mechanism for determining how these variables should be us4d or how in fact to predict site locations, there is certainly ample justification in using these variables over other vari- ables. Some suggestions are noted here conterning the reliability of other pre- dictive variables. 1. Variables which can be converted into interval or ratio scales are most powerful. Hence, the presence or absence of a resource (soil type A, stream rank 1, etc.) is probably less powerful a var- .iable than a ratio or interval (percent of soil type A, distance to stream rank 1). 2. Variables which can be consistently measured create less of a problem of observer error. Soil fertility, for example, as inferred from soil types on maps probably is less useful a measure than-would be so;@ fertility which is actually measured along a continuum (Z phosphkte, porosity ... ) 3. Variables which can be directly measured in reference to archae- ological assemblages are likely to be most sensitive. For example, distance from the center of an archaeological site to salt water. It is difficult, however, to precisely determine which variables are in operation for very large archaeological sites. Under such conditions using smaller arbitrary spaces is advisable. This, of course, implies that large areas can be conveniently reduced to smaller units. If the areas that are to be predicted are very large, then considerable envi- ronmental diversity will be present. _10- 4. The archaeological site which is to be predicted must be consistently described in terms of one or more attributes, along the lines suggested in points 1-3 above. The site should be described quantitatively (site size, number of artifacts). It should be something that is consistently measured. And the si-ze of the site should be either small or viewed in terms of small spaces. Controllirig the variability of what is to be predicted (the archaeological manifestation) is as important as controlling the predictive variables. It is assumed that the three variables used to predict in the JAD repre- sent variables which measure resources critical to past populations. Fresh water is a resource of direct importance, but has indirect implications. Plant and animal resources on the Island can be assumed to vary with increas- ing distance from fresh water with the greatest diversity of critical species falling near to or being dependent upon springs, ponds and streams. Salt water similarly has direct and indirect impacts on resources. A variety of animal forms depend upon the sea. 'In addition, salt water*and fresh water resources are negatively related to one another. Thus, as one approaches the sea, fresh water resources diminish. This provides a critical choice for organisms dependent upon both. Slope conditions are similarly complex. Soil and plant conditionsare influenced by water run off and erosion. Steep slopes are typically avoided by animals where efficiency of movement is considered. Patterns of movement, for example, can be assumed to occur where energy effi- ciency is maximum. On the other hand, steep slopes on Conanicut Island often are associated with rock outcrops which are important sources for some lithic resources (quartz outcrops). Where these outcrops are on the coast, distance from salt water should negatively correlate with slope percent (meters to sea is low while slope percent is high). A carefui examination of the association between the various predictive variables will support most of these general points (Table I Table 3 Correlation Coefficients (r) and Summary Statistics for Environmental, Variables Used to Predict Settlement Locations for Sixteen Random 100 Meter Areas in the Jamestown Archaeological District. Distance to Salt Water Slope Percent Distance to (r) -.608 -.278 Fresh Water (p) .006 .148 Distance to (r) .369 Salt Water (p) .080 Mean Standard Deviation Number Meters to Fresh Water 335.938 259.379 Number Meters to Salt Water 362.813 199.624 Slope Percentage 1.862 .811 It is evident from the preceeding information (Table 3 ) that fresh water and salt water resources are negatively related to one another. Fresh water is also restricted on more steeply sloped surfaces which are most often close to the sea. However, what is particularly noteworthy is the low amounts of fresh water within the Jamestown Archaeological District. In contrast to Rhode Island as a whole, and particularly the northern portion of the state, fresh water is not abundant. Thus, on an average one must travel over three hundred (335.938) meters from any point in the JAD. The corresponding average from the state is 240.000 meters (Morenon 1980). Because Conanicut Island is isolated from other land masses the restricted water resources may constitute a true. limiting factor (Odum 1971) which is particularly useful for settlement predic- tion. On the other hand, distance to salt water or slope conditions--wotlld-'ap- pear not to be limiting factors on Conanicut Island. Obviously, salt water is, much more available to any location within the Jamestown Archaeological District (12533.000 meters for Rhode Island; Morenon 1980). Slope conditions are not ex- treme on Conanicut Island (2.296 percent for Rhode Island; Morenon 1980). Table 4 presents information on the relationship between the environmental variables selected in this study and several "cultural variables." Hit percen- tage (number of test pits with lithic artifacts/total test pits dug) and lithic percentage (number of lithic artifacts recovered/total test pits dug) reveal the greatest sensitivity to distances to fresh water and salt water. Random sample areas closest to fresh water and farthest from salt water have the great- est density of artifacts and the greatest degree of "clustering." It is note- worthy.that other categories of material culture exhibit the same relationships, Table 4 : Correlation Coefficients (r) for Environmental Variables and Cultural Variables for Sixteen Random 100 Meter Sample Areas in the Jamestown Archaeological District. Fresh Salt Slope Cultural Variables Water Water Percentage Hit Percentage **-.701 .621 .302 Lithic Percentage **-.611 .507 .308 Shell Weight -.199 .077 .286 Modern Number -.230 .290 -.023 Ceramic Number .015 -.051 -.415 Lithic Weight -.410 .350 .448 Non-Quartz Number -.315 .042 .019 Core Number -.422 .412 .323 Primary Flake Number -.403 .393 .042 Tool Number -.622 -.154 -.050 significant at (.05 significant at C01 although the strengths of these correlations are not significant. Although the environmental variables when taken individually do exhibit some associations with various categories of prehistoric material culture, the correlation coefficients are not as strong as one might desire. It is possible, as noted earlier in this section to examine prehistoric -12- 41 material remains in terms of combinations of environmental variables. These combined variables have stronger correlations, resulting in predictive models which are more powerful. In this sutdy a multiple-linear regression statistic (Nie et al: 1979) is used. Such an approach-enables one to determine the accuracy an-d Teliability of the model through an examination of the resulting correlation statistic (r) and the exact probability of that correlation (a) for the particular sample size. Many (Table 5 ) of the models are accurate and reliable. This indicates Table 5: Predictive Models for Several Categories of Material Culture Within the Jamestown Archaeological District Where A is Fresh Water, B is Salt Water and C is Slope Percentage. Prediction Model Multiple R Hit Percentage (All JAD, 16) .3614 - .0006A + .0004B + .0250C .745 Lithic Number is It to 24.0262 - .0459A + .0216B + 3.8656C .645 Shell Weight it if if 16.1388 - .0341A - .0328B + 13.8137C .340 Lithic Number (North JAD, 8) 47.8413 - .0428A + .2234B - 8.3496C .619 Lithic Number (South JAD, 8) 53.8473 - .1281A - .0581B + 19.8065C .878 Lithic Number (Sites JAD, 4) 413.9157 - .5977A - .4878B + 4.9584C 1.000 Shell Weight it to go 4310.5600 - 5.8198A - 5.9444B- 40.3527C 1.000 that with the three environmental variables it'is possible to understand with great reliability where different density distributions are located in the study area as a whole, as well as the known sites. Even though a sample was used to develop these models it is very likely that the rest of the area which was not studied conforms to the model. The models for the Jamestown Archeological District as a whole, North and South of the Great Creek and Site Areas are very similar to one another. Multiple R values of 1.0000 for the sites indicate that it is very pos- sible to predict the location of complex and dense artifact concentrations. Pre- dicting settlement locations within the Jamestown Archaeological District provides a strong mechanism for interpreting the behavior of past populations as well as' managing archaeological resources on Conanicut Island. Management Considerations for Settlements It has been demonstrated that settlements in the Jamestown Archaeological District actually consist of small (less than 25 meter area) artifact clusters. These clusters range from singular occurrences which are typically lithic arti- fact scatters to groups of clusters which contain a variety of archaeological resources. These groupings of clusters in space represent important focal points where complex activities took place in the past. In the Jamestown Archaeological District the known sites provide good examples of these places. The isolated clusters represent important loci where more limited activities occurred in the past. When small (25 meter) areas are studied with the intensity of the Jamestown Project (1979) it can be anticipated that approximately fifty percent of those areas within the Jamestown Archaeological District will contain no archaeological resources (Figure 3 ). Focusing only upon those areas where complex archae- ological resources are known to be present, approximately one-third of the small areas will contain no demonstrable archaeological remains. This information clearly indicates that the Jamestown Archaeological Dist:- L contains archaeological resources which are abundant and pervasive throughout the whole area. The patterning of data within the JAD is predictable. Fresh water sources have been shown to be'a limiting factor which strongly associates with artifac- tual information (Table 4 ). When fresh water, salt water and slope percentage are combined it is possible to predict lithic artifact densities and clusters with considerable certainty (Table 5 ). It appears that lithic artifact densi- ties and clusters representing complex archaeological resources (sites) can be predicted with the greatest degree of assurance. Thus, the rarer locations con- taining the greatest mix of diverse remains appear to be the places which are easiest to predict within the Jamestown Archaeological District. The relationships between different classes of artifacts are straightfoward (Table 4 ). Lithic artifact density or the percentage of test pits containing lithic artifacts (hits) are two measures which correlate with a variety of other remains (shellfish, ceramics, lithic material types... ). Thus, simply knowing how many lithic artifacts occur within a defined space provides a mechanism for anticipating other resources within the Jamestown Archaeological District. Areas with high lithic artifact densities are likely to be areas which also contain domestic and subsistence related resources. Figure 3 which provides a schematic overview of artifact density for the JAD can be used to estimate loca- tions within the Jamestown Archaeological District which have the greatest variety of artifact classes. These areas of diversity also have the greatest potential for future research. However, managing only areas with complex resources (sites) in the future would limit research. Much of the prehistoric behavior that took@ place within the JAD resulted in data which was not left at "sites" and cannot be understood by simply studying sites. The following points represent a strategy for managing prehistoric settle- ment data within the Jamestown Archaeological District: 1. Future field investigation should minimally focus on twenty-five meter spaces. There should be sufficient testing to evaluate these small areas.- A five or ten meter interval between test excavations is necessary under these constraints. 2. Future' field investigations should minimally include strategies which enable researchers to describe consistently lithic artifact densities and distributions. These measures are strongly related to other artifact classes and can be used to anticipate the range of resources present. 3. Protecting the most complex archaeological resources can be facilitated by restraining development in proximity to fresh water sources. Locations within 200 meters of streams, springs and wetlands represent areas with the most complex prehistoric remains. 4. The least complex resources are pervasive. A sample of these abundant resources -should be preserved by carefully setting aside a cross-section of different environmental zones. This could be done in conjunction with a con- cern for habitat protection. -14- 23 38 20 0 .1 .2 .3 '. 4 .5 kilcmeters so -udy area oriented to UTM Grid North 6 10 NARRAGANSETT 2 BAY GresIreek 54 29 OF Study Area District Limit; 20. 1181 JAMESTOWN Sampl e Areas 61 5 E302000/54596400 Narragansett Avenue E30145O/N45960DO 13 im-11 Figure 3: Projected Lithic Artifact Counts and Contour Intervals within the Jamestown Archaeological District. Number per twenty-eight test excavations. IV. LANDOWNER INVOLVEMENT An important component of the management plan is landowner cooperation and assistance in protecting archeological resources. During the past year the Commission conducted intensive testing on eleven prehistoric sites. Of these eleven, four are considered potentially eligible' for the National Register. Consultation is underway with these four landowners to develop protection plans. The Moody site, RI 801A, is discussed below to illustrate how site information is presented ta a landowner so that informed decisions can be made about protection strategies. The Moody site was intensively tested in May and June, 1982. Shellfish from a prehistoric midden had been observed eroding from the site during an initial inspection. The landowner and the Council were informed that the midden's presence indicated a strong liklihood that significant remains were present and that the Commission would carry out the testing needed to order to make, a significance evaluation. Intensive testing was carried out using a 10 meter x 10 meter grid system of shovel test pits. This standard technique (described in the 1981 Management Plan) indicated several clusters of artifacts and features Thearths, storage or refuse pits, sheH middens--see figures @,,5,6). By contouring artifact frequencies and indicating the locations of features, figures 4 and 5 can be used to discuss protection strategies with the landowner: � encourage protection of features � encourage protection of high or diverse clusters of artifacts Discussions with the landowner will occur in the fall of 1982 and the results reported in the 1983 final yearly report. -16- MATCH LIN( -SfF NEXT PAGE,- FIGURE 4 A 1705 Moody (Ram Point) Site, R1 801A 1505 Segar Court, South Kingstown, R.I. CRMC file number: 81-12-4 Map of: Lithic Contours 2 1305 -5- Lithic contour- Interval of five lithic artifacts 8 Shovel test pit with number of I ithic artifacts Shovel test pit with no lithic artifacts 4 1105 0 5 10 20 minks _23) 2 R.I.H.K. July 1982 2 6 I U17 I A 70s 1 2 8 3 _@6 -50S 7 19 -.TO s 23 3/@ page I of 2 2 3 IOS 17 T B 7 7 s 10 N 5 6 13 6 1 /5 (((@@32 26) 5 3305 2 2 12 '0 9 1 0 0 1 1,, 29 \10 19 2 310S 2 3 5 26 28 4 8 2 5 3 13 2 28 15 15 1 290S 10 6 a 2 10 5 1 12 7 3 7 0 2705 5 8 4 -0 12 1 4 2 2 9 5 15 o I 250S 3 1 6 1 1 0 0 C7 2 7 5 3 1 1 0 230S o 5" / 3 o 0 -210S 0 0 0 26 page 2 of 2 MATCH LINE -SIFIE PREVIOUS PAGE - 18 Figure 5 6 13 6 1 1340S 1 - 5 2 13 26 2 2 8 2 17 10 9 1320S 1 0 @ 19 2 5 2 3 5 26 26 U 8 2 300S 3 24 28 15 15 1 1 1 2 11 8 6 E) W - ' 2 @2M 5 1 1 12 7 3 7 d 1 5 a 4 12 1 260S 0 (D 2 (D 5 15 3 1 6 (D - !2405 1 7 2 7 5 3 1 5 3 1 0 220S illos (D Moody (Ram Fbint) Site, R1 801A (D 11601 Segar Court. South Kingstown. R.I. I CRMC file number: 81-12-4 (D 1405 Map of: Lithics, shell and bone 1 3 11205 Shovel 5 number of lithic artifacts test * no lithic artifacts pits 0 shell 11 23 2 100S with: 0 bone 2 4 6 17 1 R.I.H PC. July 1982 . . . 0 10 20 co S (D 8 26 G .05 1 0 20S 6 2 3 F 00 19 East Wall North 28OS/71E 281S/71E 28OS/70E IOCM ...... 20cm .......... ...... 30cm 0. 00 0 40cm Cr 50cm 0 .. 5@-:6i @0k;:sItrY(). -. aq 0 C '0.00 .6 0;0. ; -0 .6 - 0 0 0 6,0,.@bqoo [email protected]#50 -0:0. JOI.O..-W .00 .0. 4. 0 W, 0 0 .00( .0 V-00. I'. 60cm 0 C 6 .0. 60 pWavu 0A U -.0 .61 4?;[). 00 70cm unexcavated 80CM unexcavat F igure 6 Moody (Ram Point) Site Soil profiles, Square 280S, 70E El A horizon Feature 1A VIM Shell and 6one Nd Mottled A&B horizc Feature OA MW B horizon Rock V. SUMMARY During 1982 the Commission made progress in three of the four major components of the 1981 Management Plan: 1. Permit reviews continued and was expanded in January to include preapplications as well as formal applications.' 2. Predictive modeling continued and Dr. Morenon's models developed for the Jamestown Archeological District. 3. Landowner cooperation resulted in continued protection of the Jobin site, RI-76 and positive consultations on four other National Register eligible sites. In addition, an initiative was made to protect.sites around Potter Pond through the Sycamore Cove Land Association (see Appendix 2). We hope to continue these efforts during the 1983 grant year, focusing on developing predictive models for the South County area. As funding levels decrease, the role of predictive models as economical guides to development should become more prominent. Reliable models such as those developed by Dr. Morenon can be used as rational guides to development, reducing the need for field investigations minimizing the costs of site recovery, and minimizing unecessary destruction of archeological resources. V1. BIBLIOGRAPHY Morenon, 1. Pierre, editor 1980 Studies within the Narragansett Basin: Results and Perspectives. Papers presented at the Northeastern Anthropological Association, Amherst., Morenon, E. Pierre, et. al. 1975 The Development of Conservation Techniques and a Land Use Study Conducted near Ranchos De Taos, New Mexico Nie, Norman H., et. al. 1979 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Odum, Eugene P. 1971 Fundamentalsof Ecology. 3rd Edition. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia Robinson, Paul A. 1980 Archeological Predictions: the Prehistoric Period in Archeological Assessment Survey for the Reconstruc-t-f-on of Route 116/146. Ms. on file at RIHPC Robinson, Paul A. 1981 -A Management Plan for Prehistoric Archeological Resources in Rhode Island's Coastal Zone. Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission, Providence. -22- I I Appendix 1: I I Task 6.5, subject area I 1 312 Review Letter.from Commission to Coastal Zone Management Program I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I July 21, 1982 Mr. Leo R. McAloon, Jr. RE: Draft Evaltiation Findings 1981 Coastal Resources Management Program 60 Davis Street Providence, RI 02908 Dear Mr. McAloon: Thank you for the draft evaluation of the CRMC's program during 1981. Our comments are as follows: We appreciate the favorable comnent's (p. 13).concerning the Management Plan for prehistoric archeological resources, and we hope the plan will serve to enhance the Council's ability to protect the archeological resources of the coastal zone. The proposed autback in archeological survey and assessment activities, however, may have the opposite effect. The Council does not have any staff resources to evaluate the impact of proposed projects on cuttural properties, unlike the effort devoted to engineering and the natural environment. Instead, the Council has relied upon the Historical Preservation Commission, through comment for above-ground resources, and contractual arrangment for archeology. With the proposed reduction in funding from $10,000.00 to $2,500.00, the Commission will no longer be able to visit all the permit sites where there is a probability of archeological resources. Nor will the Commission be able to consult as extensively with landowners to preseive significant sites through project re-design. Unfortunately, the Council will'be returning to its former status, in that it will be making permit and planning decisions without site-specific infor- mation on cultural resources in most cases. This is a clear down- grading of cultural resource protection as a priority of the Council, and should be explained as such in the evaluation. As you know, the Historical Preservation Commission has objected to the Council's treatment of above-ground cultural resources as well (see enclosed letter dated 9 July 1982 from the Commission to John Lyons). Especially concerning condominium development in Newport, the Council has consitently rejected the findings and advice of the Historical Preservation Commission, indicating again a downgrading of fy w Mr. Leo R. McAloon, Jr. Coastal Resources Management Proj.@,ram Page 2 July 21, 1982 with respect to the preservation of cultural resources in the coastal zone. This topic should also be explored in the evaluation, both in terms of the Council's responsibilities to these resources, and the Council's relations with cooperating agencies, which supply the Council with the information needed to evaluate permit applications. Concerning "streamlining," the evaluation fails to mention the improved coordination with the Historical Preservation Commission initiated after the 312 meetings, whereby the Commission now reviews all preapplications. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Eric Hertfelder Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer /dn Enclosure I I AppenliK 2: 1 Task 6.5, Subject Area 13 1 Letter from Commission to Sycamore Cove Association I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STATE 01'R1 10DE ISLAND AND PR'0V1DLNt 1'. PLANTATIONS HISTOIZICAL 11RESERVATION COMMISSION Old State House 150 Benefit Street Providence, R.I. 02903 (401) Z77-Z678 June 25, 1982 Mr. Seth Gifford President, Sycamore Cove Association Sycamore Lane South Kingstown, RI 02879 Dear Mr. Gifford: During the past two years' we have conducted small-scale archeological investigations in the Appleby and Moody lots off Segar Court. The results have been very interesting - we have established the time of year prehistoric peoples lived in the area, uncovered evidence about their dietary -customs, and are submitting specimens from.a shellfish midden to a lab for carbon 14 dating. I was talking to Mrs. Tucker this week and she was in- terested in learning more about the objects we have re- covered and what they can tell us about past aboriginal cultures. She suggested I contact you and offer to present our findings at the next meeting of the Sycamore Cove Associ- ation. The Cove and Potter Pond contain excellent examples of prehistoric settlements. We are beginning to unravel the details of how prehistoric people used the area and I would be delighted to share with the Association our findings to date. I was also discussing with Mrs. Tucker various strate- gies for reducing uncontrolled digging at prehistoric sites- around the cove. The Moody property has been significantly damaged by unauthorized people looking for prehistoric arti- facts. This digging not only constitutes a property tress- pass, but also reduces the possibility of conducting scien- tific archeological investigations. The preiiistory of your area is diverse and complox -- one that I find exciting. I would enjoy speaking to the Association about our discoveries aiid in developing a strategy for protecting the area from further damage from relic collectors. Sincerely, Paul Robinson State Archeologist /aa Appendix 3: Subject Area 20, Task 6.5, Commission Organizational Chart The attached chart shows staff organization and functions. A list of individuals within each program is attached. Note that Paul Robinson, archeology program, is funded by Federal CZM funds. t RHODE ISLAND HISTOUCAL PRESERVATION COMMiSSION STAFF ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS r .20 State Historic Pre s e'rva t i n n Frederick C. Williamson, SHPO lHistorical Prfp- Co. Mrs. George E. Oc,,.ining, Chairman Exe c'U t i Ve Director Er i c le r t f elder eputy Ed...rard Sanderson Surve Na t i Ora I State Grants and Progr lRea i s Lroperties Lmi n i s 11 ra t i 0.111 -Ar-'--ology Survey -Statewide Survey -NR no-7inations -State Inventory -Grants-in-Aid -S! -,: Antiquities -Planning Reports -Tax Act -Technical Assistance -Technical Assistance 4D roe .1 c r rd Sande, jy ro_ -Environmental Review -Certific-lons -Property Management -Personnel and Sign*':'icance -Report Publication -Purchasing -Newsletter -Fiscal Management -Library I I Appendix 4: Permits processed, sites located, and I Monitoring Activities (Task 6.5, subject area 2) I I .. I I -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Subject Area 2, Task 6.5, Monitoring Activities, January I - June 30, 1982 o Number of permits received: *113 o Archeological sites discovered: 4 o Sites in process of being nominated to National Register: I o Sites determined eligible to the National Register: 0 o Average processing time per application: 10 days o Action taken to simplify the permitting process: The Commission notifies the permit applicant that a field inspection wil I be undertaken and a brochure explaining the importance of archeological resources is attached to the letter. This procedure allows archeological inspection to be scheduled at the convenience of the landowner, thereby reducing the possibility of delays due to misunderstandings between landowners and the archeologists. The Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission 150 Benefit Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903 (4oi) - 277-2678 Frederick C. Williamson, State Historic Preservation officer Antoinette F. Downing, Chairman Eric Hertfelder, Executive Director Project Di rector: Paul A. Robinson Author: Paul A. Robinson Predictive Model: E. Pierre Morenon Graphics: Gail Gustafson Editor: Eric Hertfelder Typists: Mildred Mann Delma Nash Project Archeologists: Paul A. Robinson Gail Gustafson Kevin Callanan John McDonough