found only typical artifacts within the first few feet of soil. But as they proceeded to excavate further they found more artifacts. McLane chose to have one of the artifacts dated via charcoal sampling and found that it was 5,385 years old. The ancient date made this artifact one of the oldest artifacts in New England at the time that the sampling was dated. There were other artifacts found, both earlier and later, but these are believed to have been moved to the site from another location. The excavators of the site had three goals that they wished to accomplish: 1. to demonstrate the validity of the stratigraphic sequence, 2. to describe and date the cultural sequence at the site, and 3. to define the patterns of the site utilization through time. After the excavation, McLane had planned on writing the report for all of the artifacts and data recovered. However, soon after the excavation and before the outline had been completed, he fell ill and was unable to complete the report. He then sent all of the data that had been recovered to Harvard University, requesting that Dena Dincauze finish the report. Dincauze accepted the request, even though the site had already been destroyed, and completed the report with the information she had been given. History Native North Americans have been visiting the Neville site for more than 8000 years. The first residents arrived during the Middle Archaic period, about 7000 years ago. Dena Dincauze, who wrote the report on the site’s excavation, named the first inhabitants of the Neville site the "Neville Complex". It is likely that the first people to use this site chose the location because it was positioned conveniently next to a river that was rich in fish and a forest that contained other useful resources. Despite the fact that the site was used primarily for fishing, there were no fish bones found during the excavation. This is because the environment did not allow for their preservation. High levels of mercury in the soil, however, provides circumstantial evidence to suggest that a great deal of fishing was done at the site. Dincauze wrote that it is most likely that very little hunting or plant processing was performed at the site because "artifacts associated with such work were absent." Since very little hunting or plant processing was performed, it is probable that the site was primarily