.:. 

THE BIG LAKE ARCHEOLOGICAL PROJECT: 

REPORT TO THE PASSAMAQUODDY ON THE 1986 SURVEY 

Steven L. Cox 

and 

Bruce J. Bourque 

Maine State Museum 

May l, 1987 
INTRODUCTION 

PROJECT AREA 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Limits of Survey . . .. .. .. .. .. .... . ............................ . 

Area Description ........................... . ... . ........ .. ... . 

Previous Archeological Work . .. ... . ......... . ... . ... . ......... . 

SURVEY DESCRIPTION ............... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .. .. .. ... ... . 

Methodology . ........ . .. .. ....................... . ............ . 

Survey Coverage and Summary Site Descriptions .. ... ........... . . 

SITES ON PASSAMAQUODDY LAND . .. ....... . .... ..... . .................. . 

Site 95 . 20 .. . ... . ..... .. . .. . ..... . ... . .... . .... . ... . .... . ... . . 

CONCLUSIONS ..... ... . .. .. .. .. . ....... .. ......... . ................ .. . 

Prehistoric Occupation of the Big Lake Region ................ . 

Summary Findings ... .. ................. ... .. ....... . ... .... ... . 

Recommendations .. ... . ... . .. . ...................... . ... ... .... . 

REFERENCES ... ... ........... .. .. ...... .. ... .. ... .. . .. ... . .... .. .... . 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1 

2 

2 

2 

4 

5 

5 

7 

13 

13 

15 

15 

27 

28 

29 

Following page 

Figure 1 : Big Lake Project Area ... .... . . .. .. . . ... . .... . ... . .. . . . . . . 2 

Figure 2 : Big Lake Survey Areas ... ....... .. . . . .. . .... ....... .. . . . . 7 

Figure 3 : 95.20 Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Plate I : Site 95 .8, Gordon Island .. . .. ... . ... . .. . . .. .. ..... . . .. . ... 29 

Plate II: Site 95 . 20 , View to North.... ... .. . .. . . . ..... .. . ....... .. 29 

Plate III: Artifacts from Sites 95 . 11 , 95 . 15 and 95.20 .. .. .. ....... 29 

Plate IV: Artifacts from Sonny Sprague Collection . ..... . .. . ........ 29 
"\ 

~KX STREAK 

I 

'PLANT·/.TION 

~IG LAK8 

FIGURE II: Big Lake Survey Areas 

INDIAN 

TOWNSHIP 

PLANTATION 

NO 21 

1 ..i; 

P R I N C E T 0 N 

~~·· ' • 0 l l , • JI(......,... 
and beaches for cultural material. Approximately half of the areas were test 

pitted. We summarize surveys of previ.ously reported and newly discovered sites 

below, followed by a full description of the one major prehistoric site found 

on Passamaquoddy land. 

95 . 1 - This is a recent campsite just west of Peter Dana Point reported by 

Dean Snow. Due to a delay in receiving permission to survey Passamaquoddy 

land, we did not test this site . 

95 . 2 - Another recent campsite reported by Snow , located on the east side of 

Governor's Point. The location indicated by Snow for the camp is an area with 

a steep bank , no good boat landing , and low, wet, poorly drained soil behind 

the bank . There is no indication of a camp here, and we believe the true 

location of this site is at our site 95 . 18, which contains a recent campsite 

as well as a prehistoric site. We dug two test pits in this area, with 

negative results. 

~ 95 . 3 - A major prehistoric sit e at Gould Landing on Grand Lake Stream. We 

excavated 10 square meters on the site, confirming intact cultural deposits 

and recovering both Archaic and Ceramic period material. This is one of the 

most important sites in the region, and we have recommended evaluation of the 

erosional danger to the site and archeological mitigation if necessary. 

95.4 - An Archaic site on the property of John and Susan Stevens, this site 

was reported to Bourque in the mid- 1970's. Unfortunately, there is some 

confusion as to its placement . The recorded location is a very narrow (2-3 

meters) strip of land backed by a bog. In our judgement there is no 

possibility of a site existing there. A survey of the higher land to the south 

of the reported site along Hold Shore did uncover the remains of a site on the 

8 
95.13 - Eddie Brown site at Yates Point on Big Lake. The tip of Yates Point 

has been extensively disturbed by construction of a camp with associated 

outbuildings, road, picnic area, etc., and is also heavily eroded. We found 

only small areas of undisturbed soil, and two test pits in these areas 

produced nothing. We believe there is no chance of intact site deposits in 

this area. 

95 . 14 - Eddie Brown site on the west side of Governor ' s Point. The indicated 

location for this site is in a broad, shallow sand-bottomed cove backed by a 

bouldery, uneven lakeshore. The cove is sufficiently shallow that prior to 

damming the shore would have been somewhere near the present cove mouth. 

Although it is possible that Eddie Brown picked up artifacts from the sandy 

bottom of the cove at low water, we consider it inconceivable that any site 

deposits still exist within the cove. The information locating the site is not 

very precise, and we consider it possible that the site is actually at the 

location of our site 95.19. 

95 . 15 - This site, reported and extensively dug by Steven Feher, is located 

along Grand Lake Stream on the opposite bank from 95.3. Our tests, including 

ten 50 cm. test squares and 25 shovel test pits, confirmed the existence of 

intact cultural deposits in what is a huge site or series of sites stretching 

from at least as far upstream as site 95.3 down to the mouth of the stream, a 

distance of some 500 meters. The site has produced both Archaic and Ceramic 

period material . We believe this to be a National Register quality site, and 

have recommended further geological investigation . 

95.16 - Steve Feher site near the mouth of Little River on Big Lake. We tested 

this site with six 50 cm. test squares and 14 shovel test pits, finding only a 

few flakes. Conversations with the landowner, Ralph Williams, indicated that 

11 
he and Feher had dug extensively at this site, recovering material 

identifiable as Susquehanna . It appea.rs that between bank erosion and amateur 

excavation there are no significant portions of the site remaining. 

95.17 - Steve Feher site on Little River Island in Big Lake . The reported site 

location has very little beach and very bouldery, uneven ground. Five test 

pits produced nothing, and we believe there are no intact cultural deposits 

present. 

95.18 - Site on Governor's Point discovered during the 1986 survey. We dug 

eight 50 cm. test squares and five test pits at this site. The site is ca. 80 

meters long and contains at minimum a major middle Ceramic component. This is 

a probable National Register quality site, and we have recommended further 

investigation. 

95.19 - Site on Governor's Point west of site 95.18, discovered during 1986 

survey. Seven test squares indicated that the site is a small ( ca . 15 meters 

long) ceramic period station. Due to the small size of the site and low 

productivity in our tests, we have not recommended further evaluation. 

95.20 - Discovered during the 1986 survey, this site lies on the north side of 

the Narrows between Long and Lewy Lakes on Passamaquoddy land. Tested with 

five test squares and seven test pits, the site produced abundant flaking 

material in a thick cultural deposit but no temporally diagnostic artifacts. 

However, the character and lithic composition of the flaking debitage suggest 

to us a Middle and/or early Late Archaic occupation, and this impression is 

strengthened by two full channel gouges recovered from the site by Sonny 

Sprague of Grand Lake Stream. The site extends from the tip of the point at 

the narrows northward along the eastern shore at least 80 meters. 

12 
• 

SITES ON PASSAMAQUODDY LAND 

Three sites are known from current Passamaquoddy-owned lands in the Big 

Lake region. Two of the sites, 95.1 and 95.8, are historic period sites which 

were not tested. The third site, 95.20, is a major prehistoric site discovered 

during the course of the survey and described in detail below. 

Site 95.20 

This site is located on the north side of the Narrows between Long and 

Lewy Lakes (Plate II). We originally learned of the site through amateur Sonny 

Sprague of Grand Lake Stream, who had collected several artifacts from the 

site. Unfortunately , delays in receiving permission to test on Passamaquoddy 

land limited the amount of time we were able to spend on site. 

We tested the site with a total of five 50 cm . test squares and seven 

test pits (Figure 3). All of the test squares and three of the test pits 

(B,C,G) produced cultural material . Soil stratigraphy on the site was as 

follows : 

10 cm . black A horizon 

0-10 cm. discontinuous pale grey E horizon, mixed silt/sand/gravel 

10-25 cm. reddish-brown B2, silt/sand/gravel 

25+ cm . yellowish-brown B3, silt with light sand, gravel 

Cultural material extended throughout the deposit from the base of the A 

horizon, reaching depths of 50-70 cm . below the surface where we struck the 

water table in most of our squares . 

The thickest concentrations of cultural material occurred in our test 

13 
! SI~~ 95.2;-----·-.. ·- -----

OD 

: or I OE 

03 

·--------. ··-··-··--·----77-------

/ / 

_..,/ 

,..// 

// 

/ 

/ 

/ 

-- UPPER TERRACE ----------- ---- ,.. ___________ _ OG -----------------

OB 

5 

B 

2 

_\'\. 

cS>'" s ' 

s\"<v y.<v"'-<v~ ; 

-b~d~ 

oc 01 //. ·/:. 

.. -~-/i , :'.ACH . . /. ' 

VI ; 

()4 

r 0 A 

· .. BE~ 

t 

BANK 

j·· ... - I . "' 

i 

I 

I 

I 

"' "' "' \ti 

... ··· ... "' "' -·-·························· ... VI "' MARSH GRASS 

"' .... ·· 0 

\ii O .·· 

... "' 

~a °c) 

... ···· .. . 

4 --·--

"' 0 TEST SQUARE 

l

l ~ TEST PITS lO 

METERS 

"' ·. ·. 

····-··· ... . 

THE NARRD\JS ------------ -···- ··-----' 

FIGURE III: Site 95.20 
• 

squares 1,2,4 and 5. The land rises behind these squares to a second terracelike area at 1. 7 meters above water Level, where our test square 3 produced 

only small amounts of material. Although our tests were concentrated near the 

tip of the point, inspection of the beaches around the point revealed cultural 

material extending from the point north along the eastern side of the point a 

distance of about 70 meters, at which point the sand and cobble beach ended. 

Thus, the site is at least 70-80 meters long, and perhaps longer. 

Unfortunately, our tests produced no diagnostic artifacts. Most of the 

material recovered consisted of large-to-medium sized primary reduction flakes 

and a few flake cores, mostly of a relatively poor quality coarse-grained 

rhyolite. This rhyolite appeared throughout the deposit, and there was no 

evidence of stratigraphic variation in materials. Although not diagnostic, 

this rhyolite is very similar to material conunon in Middle Archaic collections 

in Maine . The two artifacts from the Sprague collection which can be 

definitely attributed to the site, two full-grooved gouges (Plate IV), also 

would fit well with a Middle Archaic attribution . Test squares 2,4 and 5 also 

contained a significant amount of calcined bone, extending throughout the 

deposit. A total of 66 grams of bone fragments included beaver, muskrat, 

larger mammal (deer?), snapping turtle, and unidentified bird. 

Artifacts recovered from the beach include a non-stenuned biface , a celt, 

and a couple of flake cores . The biface (Plate III:G), which shows no evidence 

of water wear and must have eroded out of the bank not long before our visit, 

is most likely a Ceramic period artifact although Archaic cannot be entirely 

ruled out . The celt or celt preform (Plate III:H) is heavily waterworn, and is 

undiagnostic but probably Archaic. 

Erosion appears to be an ongoing threat to this site . The banks of the 

14 
• 

site, particularly around the point, are heavily undercut and slumped . A 

considerable amount of cultural material lying on the beach gives evidence of 

substantial erosional damage to the site, and the unworn condition of the 

biface found on the beach near the eastern end of the site indicates that the 

erosional damage has continued up to the present . 

This is a major site. potentially one of the most important in the 

region. The site is a large one with deep cultural deposits. We have reason to 

believe that the site contains a major Middle Archaic component, and it is 

likely that other cultural components are present as well. In our judgement 

the degree of erosional threat to the site is probably greater than for any of 

the other sites we investigated. We therefore recommend geological evaluation 

of the erosional danger to the site, and archeological mitigation if 

necessary . 

CONCLUSIONS 

Prehistoric Occupation of the Big Lake Region 

Based on our own surveys and study of amateur collections, we are 

beginning to gain a reasonably good understanding of the prehistory of the Big 

Lake region. The story begins around 13,000 years ago, with Lhe retreat of the 

massive ice sheets of the late Pleistocene glaciation from the area. The great 

weight of the glacier had depressed the land surface, so that as the glacier 

retreated, the sea followed the ice edge, drowning large areas of what is now 

dry land, including low-lying portions of the Big Lake region. However, the 

marine transgression was relatively short-lived, because as the land was 

15 
impoverished environments compared to the late Pleistocene park tundra , and a 

combination of climatic and vegetalional change, perhaps together with 

increased hunting pressure from man, led to the extinction of many of the 

Pleistocene big game species. Thus, where previously a great deal of meat was 

concentrated in large animals (mammoth, mastodon) or in herds (caribou , 

bison), now animal resources were dispersed in smaller and more solitary 

species (deer, moose) requiring different hunting techniques. 

The difficulties faced in adapting to these new conditions appear to be 

reflected by low population levels in the early stages of the Archaic period , 

the next of the major periods of Maine prehistory. Evidence for Early Archaic 

(ca. 9500- 7500 years ago) is scarce in the Big Lake region, as it is in Maine 

as a whole, and is confined to scattered finds of points, now generally side 

notched for hafting rather than f luted . 

In general the Archaic period, which lasted until about 2500 years ago, 

can be seen as a period of gradual cultural adaptation to Maine ' s post-glacial 

environment . Although this increasingly sophisticated adaptation took many 

forms, two of the most important developments were an increased emphasis on 

fresh water fishing and on coastal resources including fish, shellfish and 

marine mammals. 

It is in Middle Archaic (ca. 7500-6000 years ago) that we first see 

clearly a fresh water fishing adaptation, not so much in food remains which 

are poorly preserved from this period, but in settlement locations at good 

fishing spots on rivers and lakes, particularly at relatively constricted 

portions of drainages . We see this pattern at Big Lake, with Middle Archaic 

components at Grand Lake Stream and at the Narrows between Long and Lewey 

Lakes. In general the Middle Archaic economy was probably a broad-based one, 

18 
• 

direct relationships between prehistoric populations and contemporary tribes. 

We have not identified settlemen~s from the early contact period within 

our study area, although some of the prehistoric sites such as 95.3 at Gould 

Landing on Grand Lake Stream may contain components from this period. 

Certainly the burial ground and associated monument on Gordon Island stands as 

a striking symbol of the adverse effects of European contact . It perhaps also 

stands as a symbol for the end of an 11,000 year period of prehistoric 

cultural development and human adaptation in the Big Lake region. 

Sununary Findings 

Of 13 reported prehistoric sites within the project area, we were able to 

confirm the existence of five (95.3,10 , 11,15,16). Presumably most or all of 

the others have been lost to erosion, and indeed, many of them may have been 

reported on the basis of artifacts found on the beach from an already 

destroyed site. In addition, we found three new sites (95.18-20). 

The confirmed sites share certain characteristics in common . All on the 

lake were located on sandy, well-drained deposits, and five of six lake sites 

were on points (the exception is 95.16). Of course since we, and possibly the 

amateurs as well, selected for these characteristics in our surveys the 

apparent tendencies may be the result of sampling bias, although we believe 

that they are not. Of the six confirmed lake sites, four face east or 

southeast, one faces southwest, and one (95.11) faces either southeast or 

northwest. Perhaps the most significant finding is that the four l argest and 

most intensively occupied sites within the area are all located at 

constrictions within the drainage - 95 . 3 and 15 on Grand Lake Stream, 95.18 on 

Governor ' s Point at the narrowest part of Big Lake , and 95.20 at the Narrows. 

27 
• 

Three of these four sites are located on north (south-facing) shores. 

Through our own surveys and inspection of previously unknown amateur 

collections we were able to confirm habitation of the region from Middle 

Archaic through late Ceramic , and it is likely that the Big Lake region 

supported a significant population throughout the Holocene , although perhaps 

on a seasonal basis. The majority of the sites in the project area for which 

we have collections have a Late Archaic component , and three sites 

(95.3 , 15,20) have definite or probable Middle Archaic components. All phases 

of the Ceramic period are present in the region, and particularly during late 

Ceramic significant quantities of exotic raw materials are represented. As 

might be expected, cherts from Maritimes sources are the most common exotics, 

but New York cherts, Ramah chert from Labrador, and a series of unidentified 

cherts and quartzites from outside of Maine are also well represented . 

Recommendations 

Of the eight prehistoric sites we found during the survey, five sites 

(95 . 3,10,15 , 18,20) were judged to have intact cultural deposits and to be 

sites potentially worthy of National Register nomination as significant 

archeological resources. All five of these sites show some degree of 

erosional damage . As we are not qualified to judge precise erosional rates and 

therefore the amount of site area at risk during the licensing period, we have 

recommended geological evaluation of these five sites to determine the 

erosional threat , followed by archeological mitigation of any sites with 

potential for significant further erosional damage to intact site deposits . 

The prehistoric and historic archeological sites of the Big Lake region 

are part of the cultural heritage of the native peoples of the region. We wish 

28 
• 

to both preserve and learn from that heritage, and are concerned that sites at 

Big Lake are threatened not only by srosion but also by looting of pothunters 

and by development in the region . It is our hope that we as archeologists can 

work together with the Passamaquoddy tribe, other landowners in the region, 

Georgia Pacific, and the Maine Historic Preservation Commission to preserve as 

much of that heritage as possible. 

REFERENCES 

Kopec , Diane 

1984 A Summary of the Brown Collection. MS. on file at the Maine State 

Museum, Augusta. 

1985 The Eddie Brown Collection of the West Grand Lake Area, Maine. 

The Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin 25(2) : 3-37. 

29