The Archaeology of the Polpis Road Bicycle Path: A Landmark in the Study of Native American Li/eways on Nantucket by Mary Lynne Rainey
8
N
ANTUCKET ISLAND \V!A HRST DCPLORLD B'
Native American groups approximately 11 ,000 to 12,000 year ago during the early Holocene Paleolndian migration into the Northeast. From a small peak on the va t coastal plain to a remote island at ea, antucket' dynamic terrain has been home to a ucce i n [ remarkably adaptive human groups and th ir de endents since the la t glacial recession. Although a hesive entity of contemporaty Native Am rican d s n t exist on the island, undoubtedly there are individual living in the region today who may trace their heritage, in part, to Nantucket Indian families. Data recovery The enduring legacy of a once robu t indigen u excavation in progress. population is the perp tuation of Native place-nam s throughout the i land , refer n ing the locations of former c mmunity setd ments or culturally important natural land cape feature (Little 1987). Another legacy familiar to most Nantucketer i the material culture of past Native life that blankets the island, commonly di covered by local residents a a result [ natural erosional proce s and c nstruction. These beautifully crafted stone tools, broken p ttery, hell and animal-bone refuse heap , org~c soil layers, and occa ionally bunals, are among the finite archaeological resources of Nantucket. Unlike permanent place-names, Nantucket's archaeological sites are diminished annually in the face of a HISTORIC
NANTU CKE T
growing population <Inti imminent development. As 'arly as 1916, I larry B. Turner, <I local journalist and meml er t f the I lA. reported h1s concern about the depletion of ar ·hm:olog1cal l l ourc ·s on antucket in a bri of essa). Turner W<IS im·oh-l.'d 111 the removal of a uaise buri.tl almost thilt\ \ -.1rs before writing his article for the !l A's 1 uhlished J>rocccdmg1. In hi e say, he laments the disturb.mce of the sne and the sub equent loss of cultw-.1! materials colkl:ted from the burial at that rim· (Turner 1916:51). t\ "tonMhawk" taken from the gra,· ·in I ''7 \\;Is tr<KL' I hv Turner to Akron, Ohio, in 1916. Though an ath·ot.lle of preservation , it was clear to Turner that ard1<1Colo~tcal materials collected from isl,tnd sites by antiqu.trwns were not likely to remain lo ·a!. ·n,rough much of the twenti ·th century, antu ket's ar haeologi al sitL'S were th · ~ubj · ·t of inve tigation by various groups including loc,tl co li c tors, the Massa ·hus ·tts t\rcha ·olog1c,tl Soc iety, and the antu ket ll i ·tori ·;tl t\~~ociation. Although many important site~ \\' ·re L''-C<I\ ,tted. the scientific rudy of th e olle ·tions was lim itetl. In 1966, th e National 1 [i tori l rc. ervation Act r ·cognized the significance of archaeological resourc ·s throughout the country and pr vidcd a m ·d1;tnism to ensure that fc leral undertaking take into nsid ·r.nion their effects on such properties. , ub. cqu ·nt f ·d rat and state I gislation augmented the same principles and formalized the stag of ar haeological investigation under the broad heading of "cultural resource managem nt" (CRM). er the pa t twenry-fi,·e years or o, RM surveys ha ve been undertaken on antu ket as a result oft11 e de ign and construction of bi ycle path , wasre:~a.ter treatment facilities, h ols and recreational facilines, ~
i\t
1CR
2004