New Hampshire's Prehistoric Settlement and Chronology

By Victoria Bunker

From The New Hampshire Archeologist: 1994 Volume 33/34, Number 1

Introduction

Archeologists interpret the location of sites as artifacts of past behaviors, systems, organizations or changes. In this way, we attempt to translate archeological site setting into past human choice and behavior. In this chapter, I will describe the ages and settings of New Hampshire's known prehistoric sites and will discuss some of the factors archeologists use to make inferences about settlement in the past.

New Hampshire's full prehistoric settlement pattern system can never be known because only its remnants survive at archeological sites. It is as if we are trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing. With the completion of more archeological surveys, we are discovering sites in locations archeologists once believed were never occupied. Perceptions of where and how people lived in New Hampshire during the prehistoric past have evolved as new archeological data have been interpreted. We are also refining our views of chronology, subsistence, resource utilization and past human activities. With this information, we are slowly filling in pieces of the puzzle. Not surprisingly, the more we look, the more we find.

People have lived in New Hampshire for the past 10,000 years. During this time, they did not roam aimlessly across the landscape but made choices on when and where to settle and on the types of activities best suited for each place. Today, it is the archeological record which allows interpretation of these choices, but the record is beset with problems. Fine chronological resolution is often absent, especially where stratigraphy is mixed or compressed, and temporally diagnostic artifacts are not preserved. Many sites contain multiple occupation phases which are often mixed or merged. Regional boundaries, territories and the spatial organization of human activity are generally vague and often arbitrarily defined. Site formation processes including how artifacts enter the archeological record and their subsequent movement or preservation by man or nature introduce biases.

Historic and modern land use has obscured or obliterated huge tracts of the prehistoric landscape, eliminating the opportunity to acquire important data (see Zvelebil et al. 1992:196-197).

Despite problems and biases, we can examine changes in the way people used places over time and can discuss some aspects of prehistoric settlement patterns in New Hampshire. Because reconstruction of prehistoric cultural systems is notoriously difficult given limits in archeological data, our investigation of settlement is based largely on study of the landscape. This involves viewing the environmental qualities which may have made particular places or features attractive to humans in the past. While this is not necessarily the best or the only way to study settlement patterns, it is an approach which archeologists have used in New Hampshire to date.

Chronology

Archeologists have divided New Hampshire's prehistory into several broad chronological periods based on data from archeological sites, artifact collections, and analogs from sites elsewhere in New England and the Northeast. Radiocarbon dating and detailed artifact analysis have refined chronological sequences, but temporal resolution has not yet been obtained for New Hampshire prehistory. Our chronological framework is very broad, and there are vast gaps for every cultural period. Unfortunately, much of our classification is based on single artifact types rather than entire artifact assemblages. This has introduced a significant interpretive bias such that sites without diagnostic artifacts cannot be placed in time. We have also developed a tendency to view past cultures in terms of the projectile points or pots people made, a highly dangerous situation which does not accommodate past people's rich diversity in material and non-material culture.

The periods recognized in New Hampshire include the Paleo-Indian (ca. 11,000 - 9000 BPyears before present); Early (9000 - 8000 BP), Middle (8000 - 6000 BP) and Late (6000 - 3000 BP) Archaic; Early (3000 - 2000 BP), Middle (2000 - 1000 BP) and Late (1000 - 400 BP) Woodland; and Contact (400 - 200 BP).

The Paleo-Indian period marks the earliest known human occupation of New Hampshire. The period is represented largely by the presence of scattered diagnostic artifacts, primarily in the form of fluted points or edge tools, such as an Eden point discovered on the Merrimack River (Berry 1937) or fluted points discovered on the Saco River (Sargent and Ledoux 1973). A complete Paleo-Indian assemblage or tool kit has been recognized at only one site (the Whipple site) in the state (Curran 980 and Curran in this volume), and analysis is underway on another site in the Merrimack Valley (Stinson 1988). Only a single radiocarbon date for this period has been obtained in New Hampshire; this is a date of 9615 225 BP from Weirs Beach on Lake Winnepesaukee (Bolian 1980:124). During this period, the population was probably quite small, relied on hunting for subsistence, was highly mobile, and fashioned tools from a variety of materials, including cherts from distant sources. The distribution of known finds suggests that the Paleo-Indians focused their settlement around a mosaic of streams and wetlands, including those which formed in the drainage basins of pro-glacial lakes. Lake shores, lake outlets and high river terraces were also selected for occupation. The diversity of resources in these settings would have been attractive to a highly mobile population and may partially account for the wide distribution of sites and materials seen today (Nicholas 1983; Spiess 1992).

The Early Archaic is believed to represent a transition to settling-in. Diagnostic bifaces are rare but include the Bifurcate Base,Kirk and Dalton point types, commonly recognized in southern New England (Johnson and Mahlstedt 1984). A non-bifacial tool kit has been recently recognized throughout northern New England during the Early Archaic period (Robinson et al. 1992). Quartz is the primary stone tool material in this tool kit, which consists of a variety of steep and beaked unifacial edge tools, cores, and flakes. Other tools include a diverse range of ground stone tools, such as full-channeled gouges and ground stone rods. Bifaces are rare and may have been manufactured of wood or bone (Robinson 1992). In New Hampshire, several eighth millennium components have been defined at deeply stratified sites, such as the Eddy site at Amoskeag Falls and the Wadleigh Falls site on the Lamprey River, where quartz cores and edge tools as well as cobble tools form the artifact assemblages (Bunker 1992; Maymon and Bolian 1992). Early Archaic peoples appear to have occupied lake shores and lake outlets as well as river terraces, particularly those associated with major falls.

The Middle Archaic is characterized as a period of broad regionalism. People lived in widely distributed locations. Settlement along major waterways and lakes is believed to reflect a reliance on aquatic resources, such as anadromous fish. Highly visible Middle Archaic components have been recognized at major falls along large rivers. The Neville site at Amoskeag Falls is one such site which has served as a base line for interpreting Middle Archaic sites elsewhere in the state (Dincauze 1976). We have also begun to recognize Middle Archaic sites in other locations along river tributaries, on secondary perennial streams, and on high terraces away from main rivers (Bunker and Potter 1993; Potter 1993; Starbuck 1981). One feature of the Middle Archaic is an increased usage of volcanic stone tool materials from regional sources such as the Ossipee Mountains or the Boston Basin. Stone tool materials were transported as cores or preforms to locations where they were reduced to final biface form. Quartz continued to be utilized as a stone tool material and was probably most often quarried from vein sources. Neville (ca. 7500 BP) and Stark (ca. 7000 BP) complexes define the earlier years of the Middle Archaic, while the Merrimack complex (ca. 6000 BP) defines the transition into the Late Archaic period.

The Late Archaic is typically defined in New England by three prominent traditions: the Small Stemmed, the Laurentian, and the Susquehanna or Broad Blade. The material culture of the Small Stemmed tradition typically includes small triangular or stemmed bifaces. The material culture of the Laurentian tradition typically includes bifaces of the Otter Creek, Vosburg and Brewerton types, defined from sites in New York State, as well as ground stone tools and cobble tools such as adzes, plummets, gouges and ulus. The material culture of the Susquehanna or Broad Blade tradition typically includes bifaces of the Susquehanna and Perkiomen bifaces, defined from sites outside New England, as well as broad implement blades such as the Atlantic, Wayland Notched and Mansion Inn types, defined from sites in southern New England. By the end of the period, the Orient Fishtail point is the prominent biface. Large implement blades are widely associated with the Late Archaic (Johnson and Mahlstedt 1984). Burial ceremonialism is an important feature of the period; for example, ritual breakage or "killing" of Susquehanna bifaces is known from a site in Litchfield along the Merrimack River, and cremation burials were practiced (Bunker 1988:27-28). It is also during the Late Archaic that steatite is used for the manufacture of stone bowls.

Diverse stone tool materials characterize the Late Archaic

Locally available lithics were heavily utilized and include quartz from vein and cobble sources, crystal quartz, argillicious materials and volcanics (Boisvert 1992; Bunker and Potter 1993). Materials from greater distances include quartzites, cherts and volcanics. Volcanic materials utilized during this period originated from regional source areas, including the Ossipee Mountains of New Hampshire, Mt. Kineo in Maine, and the Blue Hills, Attleboro and North Shore locales of Massachusetts.

The exact relationship of the major Late Archaic traditions has yet to be untangled; many sites contain artifacts assigned to two or more traditions, suggesting that cultural boundaries were not clear-cut. Late Archaic period sites are found virtually everywhere in New Hampshire along both major and minor water features; throughout New England the Late Archaic exhibits a strong riverine orientation (Dewar and McBride 1992:248). People probably practiced a subsistence economy based on hunting, fishing, shellfish collecting and plant gathering. Culture contact beyond the immediate geographic locale is reflected in morphological and functional artifact diversity, an influx of exotic stone tool materials, and the practice of ceremonial ritualism. This wide culture contacts, mobility, and diversity characterize the Late Archaic.

The cultural dynamism of the Late Archaic continued into the Woodland period. The Woodland is considered "cosmopolitan" (Dincauze 1976:132) in contrast to the preceding Archaic period. This period is marked by the debut of ceramics in the material culture. In the neighboring state of Maine, the period is known as the "Ceramic" rather than the "Woodland" to emphasize a continuation of a hunting-gathering lifestyle with the adoption of ceramics (Spiess 1991). While the traditional view of the Woodland includes a horticultural economy, horticulture was not a primary subsistence factor in New Hampshire. Instead, people continued their reliance on wild foods, with domesticated plants playing only a minor role very late in the period. For example, only a single kernel of prehistoric flint corn has been discovered in the entire Merrimack Valley of New Hampshire (Bunker 1988). The Early, Middle and Late Woodland periods are subdivided on the basis of ceramic style and technology, as well as typological differences in formal stone tools. The age of the first appearance of pottery is continuously being pushed back in time; new dates from the Beaver Meadow Brook site and the Eddy site now place the first pottery in the Merrimack Valley at 3150 125 BP (Howe 1988:82) and 3315 90 BP (Bunker 1986). Regional interaction increased through the Woodland period as evident in ceramic decorative techniques and the use of such diverse stone tool materials as exotic cherts. Bifaces diagnostic of the Early Woodland are Meadowood and Rossville; for the Middle Woodland are the Jacks Reef pentagonal and stemmed types as well as Woodland Lanceolate bifaces; and for the Late Woodland are large triangles of the Levanna type (Johnson and Mahlstedt 1984). A "bewildering diversity" (Dincauze 1976:132) of lithic materials characterizes the Woodland period, with stones from non-local sources strongly represented in the archeological record. Sites are located along streams, rivers and the coast throughout the Woodland. The appearance of large storage features at sites in prominent riverine or coastal locations suggests new storage technology by the Late Woodland. This may coincide with population growth, nucleation or increased sedentism.

The Contact period, with the arrival of European traders, fishermen, explorers and surveyors, marks the end of prehistory. The archeological assemblage includes items of both Native and European origin. European materials were often transformed to suit Native needs, such as copper kettles cut into effigy pendants or ballast flint used for stone tool manufacture. By the mid 1600s, contacts had extended far into the interior; for example, a fort was built by English carpenters on Lake Ossipee as protection against the Mohawks (Colby 1975:146). The Native population neared extinction during this period from war and disease. Snow (1980:34) has estimated that the local Western Abenaki population was reduced by 98% from 10,000 to 250 individuals. Survivors often abandoned their traditional lands and moved north to join the community at St. Francis, Quebec. While Contact period sites are notoriously ephemeral, sources indicate that trading centers, villages and forts were located on the coast and along major rivers (Robinson and Bolian 1987; Bunker 1988; Starbuck 1982; Thomas 1979). Sheltered locations or isolated hilltops were also selected for habitation, perhaps to escape the pressures of war, disease or land acquisition as Europeans encroached.

Anthropological Framework

New England archeologists have long believed that the "distribution of natural resources conditions the location of human settlements" (Thorbahn and Cox 1988:174), or that environmental factors are "deterministic" for settlement, subsistence and technology (Ritchie and Funk 1973:2). This approach focuses on economic reasons for people's movement and settlement and incorporates environmental change, seasonal food availability, or fluctuations in biological (e.g., plants, fish, shellfish and game animals) productivity. Generally this approach views the most desirable settlement locations as those which exhibited either a mix of resources or easy access to several ecological zones with diverse resources.

Site types and their distribution are usually thought to reflect prehistoric economic systems; movement to resources is viewed as necessary for subsistence and survival. Snow (1980:14-15) has described most prehistoric New England community patterns as a continuum between "central-based wandering" or "semipermanent sedentary" patterns. Snow also uses the "restricted wandering" pattern to discuss the earliest New England sites (Snow 1980:129). These patterns were first defined in 1955 (Beardsley et al. 1955) as tools for visualizing and interpreting human communities and their mobility.

The "restricted wandering" community pattern is defined as "communities that wander about within a territory that they

People had many ways of accommodating resource variety and fluctuations. People could choose very "focal" or very "diffuse" adaptations when resources were plentiful or scarce (Snow 1980:15). Storage and mobility are two mechanisms for smoothing fluctuations in resource variability (Snow 1980:15). Mobility allows people to gain "space utility" of resources by using a wider area than that in which the resource is actually available (Binford 1978:138). Storage allows people to gain "time utility" from resources by storing and using resources for a longer time than they are actually available (Binford 1978:138).

Economic and seasonal activity is not the sole determinant of settlement pattern (Dewar and McBride 1992:228), and New England sites rarely fit neatly into community pattern definitions. This is because available data are generally insufficient. In particular, the high resolution data necessary to define single annual rounds, finely tuned component ages, or specific examples of occupations linked through each of four seasons, simply do not exist (Dewar and McBride 1992:229). Instead, we are only able to study "remnant settlement patterns," the product of many processes both natural and cultural (Dewar and McBride 1992:230). What we view in the archeological record is the product of individual people, during individual seasons at individual locations. The clarity of the record is obscured by preservation and discovery factors and by our ability to read past human sequences and choices.

Economic and seasonal factors work well in explaining observed archeological site locations. They are relatively clear to archeologists in the form of tool kits with defined functions, seasonal plant or animal remains, and setting in a landscape with certain known or likely resources (e.g., landform, favorable aspect, elevation, surface water, plant or animal communities). They also correlate relatively well with ethnographic data from New England or other areas beyond our region. Yet another factor is equally responsible for past settlement people.

People have many reasons for making decisions about the favorability of a site. Social or political boundaries, the distance to the next occupied location, or taboos are important determinants. Because humans tend to change their environment, the effects of recent past habitation can alter site attractiveness. A site may become less attractive if recent occupants used up all the firewood and left waste or parasites behind. A site may become more attractive if recent occupants altered the setting to attract game or left behind structures or caches (Dewar and McBride 1992:232-233). If a strong and stable resource is available, people may have had no effect on it, and a location may be repeatedly occupied. People also schedule their use of resources, monitoring depletion or generation, so that reoccupation can be planned without negative effect. These variables are crucial in identifying a settlement pattern, but ones which are accessible only to ethnographers. Archeologists rarely observe this variability and only view the surviving traces.

Trends and patterns are still evident in the archeological record, even though the full agency responsible may not be visible. Some places may be occupied only once, others may be reoccupied many times. The variation observed in the "spatial congruence" of sites may reflect certain human choices and effects. Sites may be "concentrated," "localized," or "dispersed" due to varying degrees of impact by subsequent occupants in a single location (Dewar and McBride 1992:234). Certain places on the landscape must have been so rich, special or unique as to invite persistent occupation; other locations may not have been attractive at all and never occupied.

New Hampshire Prehistoric Site Setting

There are archeological sites with components dateable to all periods of prehistory throughout New Hampshire. Site locations are known from a variety of sources, including: accounts in local and regional histories; artifacts in private collections or public institutions; and accounts of professional or avocational archeologists recorded in statewide site survey files maintained by the NH Archeological Society and the NH Division of Historical Resources or reported in published and unpublished sources. There are certain biases in the data base which reflect archeological activity rather than actual prehistoric settlement. Most of the known sites are located within the Lakes Region, Merrimack Valley or the New Hampshire seacoast. This reflects the vigor of amateur archeologists, the focus of several university projects, and the locations of greatest contemporary growth prompting cultural resources management surveys. The extensive farmlands in these areas also provided 19th and 20th century artifact collectors with easy access to surface finds in plowed fields. Site locations are less well known in other portions of the state due to less intensive study. These areas include the Connecticut River Valley, the White Mountains, eastern rivers such as the Saco, Ossipee, Salmon Falls or Piscatagua and the North Country.

Variation in prehistoric site setting through time is not visible. The lack of radiocarbon dates and the absence of temporally diagnostic artifacts at many sites is partially responsible. Continuity in settlement choice through time is also responsible. Generally, the entire New Hampshire landscape was available for occupation in early post-glacial times. Fluctuations in stream and sea level and climatic changes (with accompanying change in vegetative and animal communities) may have made some locations more accessible or more desirable for settlement than others. New Hampshire sites share a number of attributes, and certain features of the landscape witnessed more occupation than others. There are general trends, unique cases and exceptions to every rule.

Most prehistoric people located themselves near surface water features. These features vary in size and type, including the ocean, major rivers and their tributaries, estuaries, seasonal and perennial streams, wetlands, springs, ponds and lakes. People occupied islands, estuary heads, and locations where two or more features intersect (e.g., stream and river confluences, lake outlets, or stream and wetland junctions) or lived near falls and rapids. Wetlands are now recognized as an important feature for prehistoric peoples (Nicholas 1992). People lived along shorelines or stream and river margins where no differentiating factors are apparent today. Sites are often found in protected settings, in coves or bays or out of the wind; sites are rarely found on open beaches. Sites are found on high terraces and bluffs with commanding vistas of river valleys below.

Sites are generally located on well drained soils, not on poorly drained soils. In the coastal area, where soils of good and poor drainage are inter-fingered, sites are positioned on the soils of better drainage even when poorly drained soils occur only a few meters away. Sites are generally located on stone-free soils, usually those formed in alluvial or outwash deposits - the soils which are commonly associated with stream or river valleys. Sites are less frequently positioned on till based soils, unless these are the soils along the margins of a water feature. Sites with alluvial soils typically exhibit deep cultural stratigraphy, often extending a meter or more below ground surface, with site remains periodically buried by flooding. Site deposits on outwash or till soils exhibit shallow or compressed cultural stratigraphy. This is due to the absence of additional sediment deposition to separate cultural episodes. The way sites are positioned on an irregular surface, a slope, a terrace margin, a knoll, or a shoreline may be the most telling of human choice.

Sites are not generally found on very steep slopes or very rocky landscapes. Yet there is evidence that hilltop and mountain locations were attractive, as were caves or rock shelters. These settings may have provided look-outs, may have been easily defensible, or may have been near stone well-suited for the manufacture of tools.

With increasing distance from prominent landscape features, site size, artifact quantity, and number of occupations decreases. That is, sites with the largest area, highest artifact density and greatest number of occupations are located in distinctive settings. These include major river channels, particularly at falls or river confluences, the interface of tidal estuaries and fresh water, or the outlets of lakes. It is easy to speculate that reliable, predictable and abundant food resources would have been readily available at such locations, making them desirable for occupation by large groups of people. This might include fish runs at Amoskeag Falls, or the Weirs, or equal access to coastal and interior fish, game and shellfish at seacoast sites. It then becomes easy to imagine people congregating at these places during certain seasons and dispersing to other places during other times of the year. Perhaps this did happen. Perhaps other factors were equally responsible for the persistence we see in the archeological deposits at certain spots. Perhaps major falls along a river would have been a barrier to travel and a natural stopping place, or perhaps they were natural focal points. Perhaps river confluences were landmarks and access routes to interior highlands. Perhaps certain spots marked cultural, political or social boundaries, others may have been centers for congregating or trading, others defensible or offered vantages, and yet others neutral zones between tribal entities.

Most of New Hampshire's prehistoric sites are multicomponent. People visited the same location many times in the past, often at intervals of thousands of years. While the same site location was repeatedly selected, individual components are not always precisely spatially congruent often components are horizontally separated by tens of hundreds of meters. Some sort of continuity in attractiveness must have existed for these places. At some locations, the range of activities was nearly identical even though habitation was separated by thousands of years. For example, plant food processing was repeated at the Smolt site in Litchfield from the Archaic through the Woodland (Kenyon 1983), and manufacture of bifaces from cores or preforms was repeated at the Mason site in Pembroke throughout the Archaic (Bunker and Potter 1993). Does this reflect conservatism? tradition? adaptive and technological stability? resource availability? or chance?

Future Directions

Because large sites and sites with many artifacts are highly visible, they have naturally become the focus of archeology in New Hampshire. When the entire prehistoric landscape is considered, the role of these sites will be less dominant, and a more complete view of settlement pattern will emerge. To make these patterns visible, one key variable must be refined time. With a temporal scale as broad as the one we now have, understanding the relationship of New Hampshire's many sites is next to impossible. This is coupled with constraints of poor preservation, weak ethnography, incomparable data samples, and lack of evidence for seasonality. It's no wonder that environmental and economic models the easiest to understand and simplest to apply are so often used to interpret our prehistoric sites.

Despite gaps in our knowledge, simply looking for more sites will not be sufficient. Instead, we must better interpret the sites we already have recorded. We can stretch our research questions to include cultural, social or political issues and look for settlement causes beyond annual rounds based on food or resource availability. A first step would be to study single component sites, where activities are not blurred by repeated occupations over several time periods. At multiple occupation sites, we need to recognize components and define their relationship to contemporaneous locations on the same immediate landscape. Another starting place would be to investigate more sites at greater distances from prominent natural features. At interior, upland or backland sites we are likely to have better temporal, seasonal and functional resolution. We can also turn to less developed areas of the state where preservation of the full range of sites is less likely to be compromised by modern and historic development. A more thorough review of ethnographic data in sixteenth and seventeenth century accounts may give insights, as might critical reading of romanticized Indian tales of the nineteenth century. Although historic accounts are often flawed by the views of the teller, they are usually based on traditions which have their roots in reality. In all attempts, we must remain sensitive to biases in interpretation from preservation or data accessibility.

Finally, we need to remember that when using archeological data we can only view the remnants of what must have been a very rich and integrated social system. Given the great time depth of our sites, we can begin to understand dynamics, changes and past choices for settlement throughout the ancient New Hampshire landscape.

References

1. Beardsley, Richard, Preston Holder, Alex Krieger, Betty J. Meggers, John Rinaldo and Paul Kutsche. 1955 Functional and Evolutionary Implications of Community Patterning. Seminars in Archaeology: 1955. Society for American Archaeology, Memoir, Vol. 11:129-155.
2. Binford, Lewis, 1978 Jochim: Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. American Antiquity, Vol. 43(1):137-138.
3. Boisvert, Richard, 1992 X-Ray Diffraction Analysis of Lithics from West Branch Brook Site 27-CA, Madison, NH. New Hampshire Archeological Society Newsletter, Vol. 8(2):7-8.
4. Bolian, Charles, 1980 The Early and Middle Archaic of the Lakes Region, New Hampshire. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, Vol. 7:115-134.
5. Bunker, Victoria 1986 The Eddy Site. Field notes on file at Phillips Exeter Academy.
6. ---, 1988 Archeological Survey of Litchfield, New Hampshire. Report on file at NH Division of Historical Resources.
7. ---, 1992 Stratified Components of the Gulf of Maine Archaic Tradition at the Eddy Site, Amoskeag Falls. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology, Vol. 9:135-148.
8. Bunker, Victoria, and Jane Potter, 1993 Archeological Research Study: Data Recovery at the Mason Site. Draft report in preparation for Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts.
9. Colby, Solon, 1975 Colby's Indian History. Center Conway: Walkers Pond Press.
10. Curran, Mary Lou, 1980 Studying Human Adaptation at a Paleo-Indian Site: A Preliminary Report. Research Report 18, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
11. Dewar, Robert, and Kevin McBride, 1992 Remnant Settlement Patterns. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, ed. by J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 193-226.
12. Dincauze, Dena F., 1976 The Neville Site: 8000 Years at Amoskeag. Peabody Museum Monograph No. 4. Cambridge, MA.
13. Howe, Dennis E., 1988 The Beaver Meadow Brook Site: Prehistory on the West Bank at Sewall's Falls, Concord, New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Archeologist, Vol. 29(1): 49-107.
14. Johnson, Eric, and Thomas Mahlstedt, 1984 Guide to Prehistoric Site Files and Artifact Classification System. Massachusetts Historic Commission, Boston, MA.
15. Kenyon, Victoria, 1983 The Smolt Site: Seasonal Occupation in the Merrimack Valley. The New Hampshire Archeologist, Vol. 24.
16. Maymon, Jeffrey, and Charles Bolian, 1992 The Wadleigh Falls Site: An Early and Middle Archaic Period Site in Southeastern New Hampshire. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology, Vol. 9: 117-134.
17. Nicholas, George, 1979 The Cohas Brook Site (NH 45-24), Manchester, New Hampshire: a Preliminary Report. The New Hampshire Archeologist, Vol. 20:1-30.
18. Potter, Jane, 1993 Phase II Intensive Archeological Survey, Nashua Project. Report on file at NH Division of Historical Resources.
19. Ritchie, William, and Robert Funk, 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir 20, New York State Museum and Science Service. Albany, NY.
20. Robinson, Brian, 1992 Early and Middle Archaic Period Occupation in the Gulf of Maine Region: Mortuary and Technological Patterning. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology, Vol. 9:63-116.
21. Robinson, Brian, and Charles Bolian, 1987 A Preliminary Report on the Rocks Road Site (Seabrook Station): Late Archaic to Contact Period Occupation in Seabrook, New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Archeologist, Vol. 28(1):19-51.
22. Robinson, Brian, James Petersen and Anne Robinson, eds., 1992 Early Holocene Occupation in Northern New England. Occasional Publications in Maine Archaeology, Number Nine.
23. Sargent, Howard, and Francis Ledoux, Vol. 5:67-68.
24. Snow, Dean R., 1980 The Archaeology of New England. New York: Academic Press.
25. Spiess, Arthur, 1991 Ceramic Period Study Unit. Manuscript on file at Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, Maine.
26. ---, 1992 Late Paleoindian Context. Manuscript on file at Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, Maine.
27. Starbuck, David R., 1981 NH 31-20-5. A Middle Archaic Site in Belmont, New Hampshire. State of New Hampshire, Department of Public Works and Highways.
28. ---, 1982 Excavations at Sewall's Falls (NH 31-30) in Concord, NH. The New Hampshire Archeologist, Vol. 23:1-36.
29. Stinson, Wesley, 1988 Division of Historical Resources, Archeology in Merrimack. New Hampshire Archeological Society Newsletter, Vol. 4(2):3-4.
30. Thomas, Peter, 1979 In the Maelstrom of Change. The Indian Trade and Cultural Process in the Middle Connecticut River Valley: 1635-1655. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
31. Thorbahn, Peter, and Deborah Cox, 1988 The Effect of Estuary Formation on Prehistoric Settlement in Southern Rhode Island. In Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, ed. by George Nicholas. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 167-184.
32. Zvelebil, Marek, Stanton Green and Mark Macklin, 1992 Archaeological Landscapes, Lithic Scatters, and Human Behavior. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, ed. by J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 193-226.