20211206_Archeological_Report

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE
NEW LONDON MINE PROJECT AND
NRHP EVALUATION OF THE PARKER GOLD MINE SITE,
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAFT REPORT
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
September 2021

DRAFT
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE
NEW LONDON MINE PROJECT AND
NRHP EVALUATION OF THE PARKER GOLD MINE SITE,
STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ER 21-0967
Submitted to:
BOULDER ASSOCIATES, LLC
304 S. Second Street
Albemarle, North Carolina 28001
LIN
TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
705 Dogwood Road
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Authored by:
Bruce Idol
September 2021

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has completed an archaeological survey for the New London Mine
project (the Project) and a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluation of the Parker Gold Mine
site in Stanly County, North Carolina. In addition to that work, a small family cemetery situated
immediately outside of the Project (the Parker Cemetery) was recorded. The work was conducted on behalf
of Boulder Associates, LLC as part of the permitting requirements for proposed mining activities. This
work took place in accordance with TRC's technical proposal for the Project.
The Project area encompasses about 293 acres on an irregularly shaped, privately -owned tract located
southwest of New London and west of NC 52, and includes broad ridges and associated slopes dissected
by two small tributaries of Town Creek. The Project area is bounded to the north by Steakhouse Road (SR
1440) and privately owned parcels, to the east by the Norfolk Southern tracks and private and commercial
properties, and by privately owned parcels to the south and west. Most of the Project area is wooded, but
small areas (mainly hill/ridgetops) have been cleared and graded, and there is an extensive network of
graded roads and road traces. A small artificial lake is also present on the property. North Carolina Historic
Preservation Office/Office of State Archaeology (NC HPO/OSA) files indicate that the Project area
contains one previously recorded historic property (the Parker Gold Mine, NC HPO resource ST0245), an
early nineteenth to late twentieth century mine. In addition, a small, late eighteenth to late nineteenth
century family cemetery (the Parker cemetery, NC HPO resource ST0244) is situated immediately outside
of the Project area. The Parker Gold Mine and the Parker family cemetery were recorded as archaeological
sites as part of the survey.
This study was conducted to produce information on any significant sites or other properties that might be
present within the Project area to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
so that the information could be considered for planning purposes. The survey satisfies the requirements
for an intensive archaeological survey as defined by the NC HPO/OSA and complies with the OSA's (2017)
Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines.
The archaeological fieldwork was directed by Bruce Idol of TRC, occurred from July 6-28, 2021, and
required approximately 41.5 person -days to complete. The fieldwork included a systematic pedestrian
reconnaissance of the entire Project area and systematic shovel testing at 30-m intervals across all parts of
the Project area except for visible wetland areas, areas of greater than 10% slope, or areas of visible and
severe disturbance; supplemental shovel tests were excavated at 15-m intervals to delineate finds. A total of
1,003 shovel tests were excavated as part of the Project. The evaluation of the Parker Mine included close
interval surface inspection (including sloped areas) and mapping of identifiable surface features.
The survey identified 17 archaeological sites (31 ST273-31 ST289), including the Parker Gold Mine
(31ST289, recorded in NC HPO files as ST0245) and one additional site situated immediately adjacent to
the Project area (31 ST290, the Parker cemetery, recorded in NC HPO files as ST0244) (Table i.1.). Sixteen
of the sites (31 ST273-31 ST288) are dispersed, low -density lithic scatters or isolated lithic artifact finds
that contain potential Early Woodland (31 ST273) or nondiagnostic lithic (31 ST274-31 ST288)
components. All of these are associated with severely eroded, residual soils and generated very few
artifacts.
Site 31 ST289 (HPO resource ST0245) is the Parker Gold Mine, an early nineteenth to late twentieth century
gold mine that is represented within the Project area by a number of subsurface cuts and gouges related to
surface mining extraction, a remnant trench system that appears to represent a reinforced sluice box network
associated with a concrete dam, and an apparent razed brick and mortar structure associated with outlying
iron machinery components that appear attributable to early twentieth century mining activities. In addition,

an open mine cut containing a narrow, framed portal, a remnant iron headframe, and ancillary infrastructure
is present immediately outside of the Project area. When evaluated under the NRHP definition of those
attributes of significance necessary to be listed as a mining property, the Parker Gold Mine site appears to
retain integrity sufficient to meet the NRHP requirements for significance under Criterion A, and
consequently is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. The site does not appear to meet the
thresholds of significance for eligibility under Criteria B, C, or D, however. It does not appear that the
portion of the site within the Project area has the potential to generate any new or significant archaeological
information.
Table i.l. Archaeological Sites Identified by the Survev.
Site Component Recommendation
31 ST273 Precontact: Early Woodland? Not NRHP eligible
31 ST274 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST275 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST276 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST277 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST278 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST279 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST280 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST281 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST282 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST283 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST284 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST285 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST286 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST287 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST288 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST289 Postcontact: Parker Gold Mine (HPO ST0245) Eligible (Criterion A)
31 ST290 Postcontact: Parker Cemetery (HPO ST0244) Unassessed /Avoidance
The Parker Cemetery (31 ST290, HPO resource ST0244) is a small family cemetery associated with the
family of Howell Parker Sr. Although the cemetery was documented as part of the Project, it is outside of
the Project area and has not been assessed for NRHP eligibility. The perimeter of the cemetery (as identified
visually) was marked with orange -tipped pin flags and will be surrounded by a permanent buffer of at least
10 meters (ca. 33 feet). Like other cemeteries, it is protected by a variety of North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S.), including G.S. 14-148 (Defacing or Desecrating Grave Sites), 14-149 (Desecrating, Plowing over
or Covering up Graves; Desecrating Human Remains), Chapter 65, Article 12, Part 4 (Removal of Graves),
and Chapter 70, Article 3 (The Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act). No
evidence of unrecorded cemeteries was found within the Project area.
The 16 precontact period sites lack research potential and are all recommended not eligible for the NRHP
(under all four criteria) as expressed within the Project area. No further archaeological investigations are
recommended at those sites for the Project as currently defined.
Providing that NC SHPO concurs with the recommendations and providing that 31 ST290 (the Parker
Cemetery) is avoided by all construction activities and protected by an appropriate buffer, no further
archaeological investigations are recommended for the New London Mine project as presently defined.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Jennifer Robertson of Atlas Environmental, Inc. for facilitating the
fieldwork. Dr. David Cranford of the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology is thanked for his input
and support.
For TRC, Tasha Benyshek served as Principal Investigator. Bruce Idol directed the survey and was assisted
by Mary Armstrong and Lia Kitteringham. The artifacts were processed by Brenda Magouirk-Nelson; the
lithic artifacts were analyzed by Belinda Cox; and the Euro-American artifacts were analyzed by Paul
Webb. John Kesler photographed the artifact plates; Belinda Cox produced the graphics; and the report was
copyedited by Heather Millis.
iii

This page intentionally left blank.
iv

CONTENTS
MANAGEMENTSUMMARY..................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................................................................................................................iii
FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................... vii
TABLES...................................................................................................................................................... xi
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... I
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.............................................................................................................. 5
ProjectSetting.....................................................................................................................................5
Physiography, Geology, Hydrology, and Soils................................................................................... 5
ModernClimate................................................................................................................................12
Floraand Fauna.................................................................................................................................12
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................15
Archaeological Overview..................................................................................................................15
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500-8000 B.C.)................................................................................15
Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)..........................................................................................17
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1000)..............................................................................19
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1500)................................................................................20
Late Precontact to Contact Period (ca. A.D. 1500-1700)........................................................... 21
Historic Period Overview.................................................................................................................. 22
Post -Contact Period Native American Occupation.................................................................... 22
Euro-American Settlement......................................................................................................... 24
GoldMining in Stanly County................................................................................................... 25
Previous Archaeological Research.................................................................................................... 26
4. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS............................................................................................... 29
ResearchObjectives..........................................................................................................................29
ResearchMethods............................................................................................................................. 29
Background Research.................................................................................................................29
FieldMethods............................................................................................................................. 29
LaboratoryMethods.......................................................................................................................... 30
ArtifactAnalysis......................................................................................................................... 30
Curation...................................................................................................................................... 30
NRHP Eligibility Evaluation............................................................................................................. 30
5. RESULTS............................................................................................................................................... 33
Previously Identified Resources........................................................................................................ 33
ArchaeologicalSites...................................................................................................................33
Historic Properties and Structures.............................................................................................. 33
Cemeteries.................................................................................................................................. 33
History and Map Depictions of the Project Area.............................................................................. 34
FieldSurvey Results......................................................................................................................... 36
31 ST273..................................................................................................................................... 39
31 ST274..................................................................................................................................... 44
31 ST275..................................................................................................................................... 47
31 ST276..................................................................................................................................... 50
31 ST277..................................................................................................................................... 51
u

31 ST278..................................................................................................................................... 54
31 ST279..................................................................................................................................... 57
31 ST280..................................................................................................................................... 60
31 ST281..................................................................................................................................... 63
31 ST282..................................................................................................................................... 66
31 ST283..................................................................................................................................... 69
31 ST284..................................................................................................................................... 72
31 ST285..................................................................................................................................... 75
31 ST286..................................................................................................................................... 78
31 ST287..................................................................................................................................... 81
31 ST288..................................................................................................................................... 84
6. EVALUATION OF THE PARKER GOLD MINE SITE (31 ST289).................................................... 88
Archaeological Investigation............................................................................................................. 88
31 ST289..................................................................................................................................... 88
NRHPEvaluation............................................................................................................................106
Chronology...............................................................................................................................106
Mining Methods and Technology.............................................................................................108
EconomicHistory.....................................................................................................................109
AssociatedIndividuals..............................................................................................................109
Archaeological Component......................................................................................................109
Structures and Physical Infrastructure Evidence......................................................................112
Discussion.................................................................................................................................158
7. THE PARKER CEMETERY...............................................................................................................163
31 ST290..........................................................................................................................................163
8. RESEARCH SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........
171
REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................................. 173
APPENDIX 1: Artifact Catalog
vi

FIGURES
1.1.
Location of the New London Mine Project area in southern North Carolina ..................................... 2
1.2.
Archaeological sites in the New London Mine Project area in Stanly County, North Carolina.........
3
2.1.
Graded and cleared area on southern ridgetop in west half of Project area, facing north ...................
6
2.2.
Graded and cleared area in east half of Project area, facing northeast ................................................
6
2.3.
Artificial lake in northern part of Project area, facing northeast.........................................................
7
2.4.
Extensive borrow area surrounding lake, facing northwest................................................................
7
2.5.
Heavily graded and disturbed area near Steakhouse Road, facing east ..............................................
8
2.6.
Heavily eroded and cut area east of main access road, facing north ...................................................
8
2.7.
Southern end of concrete slab dump, facing northeast........................................................................
9
2.8.
Coal ash pile in east half of Project area, facing southwest................................................................
9
2.9.
Typical side slope with Georgeville series soils, facing north..........................................................11
2.10.
Boulder outcrops on southern ridgetop, facing southwest................................................................11
2.11.
Boulder outcrop in southwestern corner of east half of Project area, facing east .............................12
5.1.
Granite slab, facing southwest..........................................................................................................
34
5.2.
The Project vicinity as shown on the 1904 county map (Miller 1904).............................................
35
5.3.
The Project vicinity as shown on the 1916 Stanly County soils map (Jurney 1916) ........................
35
5.4.
The Project vicinity as shown on the 1980 USGS topographic quadrangle ......................................
36
5.5.
New London Mine Project shovel tests and archaeological sites .....................................................
38
5.6.
Refuse and rock pile near western Project area edge, facing west ....................................................
39
5.7.
Map of 31 ST273...............................................................................................................................
40
5.8.
Site 31 ST273, facing north...............................................................................................................
41
5.9.
Shovel Test 18-8 at 31 ST273............................................................................................................
42
5.10.
Selected lithic artifacts from 31 ST273, 31 ST279, 31 ST281, and 31 ST285.....................................
43
5.11.
Map of 31 ST274...............................................................................................................................
45
5.12.
Site 31 ST274, facing north...............................................................................................................
46
5.13.
Shovel Test 5-2 at 31 ST274..............................................................................................................
46
5.14.
Map of 31 ST275 and 31 ST276.........................................................................................................
48
5.15.
Site 31 ST275, facing northwest........................................................................................................
49
5.16.
Shovel Test 36-4 at 31 ST275............................................................................................................
49
5.17.
Site 31 ST276, facing northeast.........................................................................................................
50
5.18.
Shovel Test N300 E285 at 31 ST276.................................................................................................
51
5.19.
Map of 31 ST277...............................................................................................................................
52
5.20.
Site 31 ST277, facing east..................................................................................................................
53
5.21.
Shovel Test N300 E315 at 31 ST277.................................................................................................
53
5.22.
Map of 31 ST278...............................................................................................................................
55
5.23.
Site 31 ST278, facing east..................................................................................................................
56
5.24.
Shovel Test 72-15 at 31ST278..........................................................................................................56
5.25.
Map of 31 ST279...............................................................................................................................
58
5.26.
Site 31 ST279, facing east..................................................................................................................
59
5.27.
Shovel Test 79-4 at 31 ST279............................................................................................................
59
5.28.
Map of 31 ST280...............................................................................................................................
61
5.29.
Site 31 ST280, facing east..................................................................................................................
62
5.30.
Shovel Test 87-3 at 31 ST280............................................................................................................
62
5.31.
Map of 31 ST281...............................................................................................................................
64
5.32.
Site 31 ST281, facing east..................................................................................................................
65
5.33.
Shovel Test 96-1 at 31ST281............................................................................................................65
5.34.
Map of 31 ST282...............................................................................................................................
67
5.35.
Site 31ST282, facing east..................................................................................................................68
vii

5.36. Shovel Test 99-13 at 31ST282..........................................................................................................68
5.37. Map of31ST283...............................................................................................................................70
5.38. Site 31 ST283, facing south...............................................................................................................
71
5.39. Shovel Test 101-4 at 31ST283..........................................................................................................71
5.40. Map of 31 ST284...............................................................................................................................
73
5.41. Site 31 ST284, facing west.................................................................................................................
74
5.42. Shovel Test 122-3 at 31 ST284..........................................................................................................
74
5.43. Map of 31 ST285...............................................................................................................................
76
5.44. Site 31 ST285, facing west.................................................................................................................
77
5.45. Shovel Test N100 E115 at 31ST285.................................................................................................77
5.46. Map of 31 ST286...............................................................................................................................
79
5.47. Site 31 ST286, facing west.................................................................................................................
80
5.48. Shovel Test 112-10 at 31ST286........................................................................................................80
5.49. Map of 31 ST287...............................................................................................................................
82
5.50. Site 31 ST287, facing south...............................................................................................................
83
5.51. Shovel Test N185 E230 at 31 ST287.................................................................................................
83
5.52. Map of 31 ST288...............................................................................................................................
85
5.53. Site 31 ST288, facing north...............................................................................................................
86
5.54. Shovel Test 112-4 at 31 ST288..........................................................................................................
86
6.1 Ca. 1880-1889 map of the Parker Gold Mining property .................................................................
89
6.2. Hydraulic mining at the Parker Mine (from Nitze and Wilkens 1897:Plate IV) ...............................
99
6.3. Standpipe and sluices at the Parker Mine (from Nitze and Wilkens 1897:Plate V)........................100
6.4. Site 31ST289 features projected on aerial map...............................................................................110
6.5. Site 31ST289 selected features projected on aerial map.................................................................111
6.6. Mine cut 18 with framed adit or portal and remnant headframe at 31ST289, facing north ............
113
6.7. Mine cut 18 with framed adit or portal and remnant headframe at 31 ST289, facing west .............113
6.8. Mine cut 18 with framed adit or portal and remnant headframe at 31 ST289, facing east ..............114
6.9. Electrical utility pole with wire pulley rig next to mine cut 18 at 31 ST289, facing east ................114
6.10. Possible structure remains (Structure 1) at 31ST289, facing southwest.........................................115
6.11. Possible structure remains (Structure 1) at 31ST289, facing northwest.........................................115
6.12. Structure 1, mortared brick and beam section with wire nails at 31 ST289.....................................116
6.13. Wrought iron headboard at 31 ST289..............................................................................................116
6.14. Iron hoop/ring/wheel at 31 ST289...................................................................................................117
6.15. Stoneware vessel fragment (left) and whiteware plate fragment (right) from 31 ST289.................117
6.16. Iron machinery components located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289..............................118
6.17. Rotary drum, scrubber, or trommel located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289 ...................119
6.18. Rotary drum with camshaft located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289...............................119
6.19. Component with revolving prongs located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289....................120
6.20. Component located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289........................................................120
6.21. Concrete dam remnants at 31 ST289, facing northwest...................................................................121
6.22. Concrete dam remnants at 31 ST289, facing southeast....................................................................121
6.23. Possible sluice with iron beams set in concrete piles at 31 ST289, facing northwest ......................122
6.24. Possible sluice with iron beams set in concrete piles at 31ST289, facing south.............................122
6.25. Paired concrete piles adjacent to stream at 31ST289......................................................................123
6.26. Concrete pile with iron bar at 31ST289, facing west......................................................................123
6.27. Threaded iron pipe joint found at sluice location at 31ST289........................................................124
6.28. Mine trench cut 1 in west half of 31 ST289, facing north................................................................127
6.29. Mine trench cut 1 at 31 ST289, facing north....................................................................................128
6.30. Mine trench cut 2 in west half of 31 ST289, facing southeast.........................................................128
6.31. Mine trench cut 2 in west half of 31 ST289, facing northwest........................................................129
6.32. Rock spoil associated with mine trench cut 2 and prospecting pit 1 at 31 ST289, facing southeast
129
viii

6.33. Scatter of quartzite cobbles associated with mine trench cut 2 at 31 ST289, facing southwest ....... 130
6.34. Mine trench cut 2 in west half of 31 ST289, facing southeast (note modern refuse).......................130
6.35. Shallow mine cut 3 in west half of 31 ST289, facing southeast......................................................131
6.36. Mine trench cut 4 in west half of 31 ST289, facing south...............................................................131
6.37. Mine trench cut 5 in west half of 31 ST289, facing south...............................................................132
6.38. Mine trench cut 6 in east half of 31 ST289, facing south................................................................132
6.39. Mine trench cut 7 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest.........................................................133
6.40. Deepest portion of mine trench cut 7 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest ...........................133
6.41. Deepest portion of mine trench cut 7 in east half of 31 ST289, facing southeast ............................134
6.42. Mine trench cut 7 with adjacent spoil in background in east half of 31ST289, facing north ..........
134
6.43. Displaced basalt boulders near mine cut 7 in east half of 31 ST289, facing east ............................135
6.44. Mine cut 8 in east half of 31 ST289, facing north............................................................................135
6.45. Mine cut 9 in east half of 31 ST289, facing north............................................................................136
6.46. Deep mine cut 10 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest.........................................................136
6.47. Deep mine cut 10 with spoil in background in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest.................137
6.48. Mine cut 11 in east half of 31 ST289, facing north..........................................................................137
6.49. Mine cut 11 with associated spoil in east half of 31 ST289, facing south.......................................138
6.50. Mine cut 12 in east half of 31 ST289, facing west...........................................................................138
6.51. Mine cut 13 with standing water in east half of 31 ST289, facing west..........................................139
6.52. Mine cut 14 in east half of 31 ST289, facing west...........................................................................139
6.53. View from inside mine cut 14 in east half of 31 ST289, facing west..............................................140
6.54. Rock spoil field, east side of mine cut 14 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest ....................140
6.55. Mine cut 15 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest..................................................................141
6.56. Mine cut 16 at stream in east half of 31 ST289, facing east............................................................141
6.57. Mine cut 17 at stream in east half of 31 ST289, facing northeast....................................................142
6.58. Mine trench cut 1 in west half of 31 ST289, facing southeast.........................................................142
6.59. Mine trench 3 with prospecting pit 11 in east half of 31 ST289, facing south................................143
6.60. Mine trench 5 in east half of 31 ST289, facing north.......................................................................143
6.61. Prospecting trench 18 in east half of 31 ST289, facing east............................................................144
6.62. Prospecting trench 7 in east half of 31 ST289, facing south............................................................144
6.63. Prospecting trench 10 in east half of 31 ST289, facing southwest...................................................145
6.64. Mine trench cut 11 in west half of 31 ST289, facing east................................................................145
6.65. Mining trench cut 11 with spoil in foreground in west half of 31 ST289, facing west....................146
6.66. Mine trench cut 12 near Structure 1 and stream in east half of 31 ST289, facing east ....................146
6.67. Prospecting trench 54 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northeast....................................................147
6.68. Large prospecting cut in northern section of 31 ST289, facing northwest......................................147
6.69. Large prospecting pit near modern building in northern section of 31 ST289, facing east .............148
6.70. Prospecting pits 3 and 4 on side slope in east half of 31 ST289, facing west..................................148
6.71. Prospecting pit 5 in east half of 31 ST289, facing north..................................................................149
6.72. Prospecting pit 9 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest...........................................................149
6.73. Prospecting pit 20 in east half of 31 ST289, facing west.................................................................150
6.74. Large prospecting pit 24 in east half of 31 ST289, facing west.......................................................150
6.75. Prospecting pit 42 (possibly modern) in east half of 31 ST289, facing east....................................151
6.76. Prospecting pit 30 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northeast..........................................................151
6.77. Bouldery area in prospecting pit 46 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northeast..............................152
6.78. Prospecting pit 48 with quartzite cobble spoil in east half of 31ST289, facing southeast..............152
6.79. Prospecting pit 66 on steep side slope in east half of 31 ST289, facing north.................................153
6.80. Prospecting pit 71 in west half of 31 ST289, facing west................................................................153
6.81. Canalized stream near mine cut 16 at 31 ST289, facing northeast..................................................154
6.82. Canalized stream section with adjacent rock spoil at 31ST289, facing north.................................154
6.83. Rock spoil piles within central stream channel at 31 ST289, facing north......................................155
ix

6.84. Canalized central stream with parallel spoil piles at 31 ST289, facing north..................................155
6.85. Canalized/incised central stream near prospecting pit 52 at 31 ST289, facing north ......................156
6.86. Iron fuel storage tanks, western area...............................................................................................158
7.1. Parker Cemetery, facing south........................................................................................................164
7.2. Parker Cemetery, facing north........................................................................................................164
7.3. Parker Cemetery, facing east...........................................................................................................165
7.4. South side of inscribed monument in the Parker Cemetery, facing north.......................................165
7.5. West side of inscribed monument in the Parker Cemetery, facing east..........................................166
7.6. Floral motif on east side of the Parker Cemetery monument, facing west......................................166
7.7. Map of Parker Cemetery.................................................................................................................167
x

TABLES
i.1.
Archaeological Sites Identified by the Survey....................................................................................ii
2.1.
Soils within the Project Area.............................................................................................................10
3.1.
Generalized Cultural Chronology for the Southern Piedmont of North Carolina .............................16
3.2.
Gold Mines in Stanly County............................................................................................................ 25
5.1.
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Project .....................................
33
5.2.
Archaeological Sites..........................................................................................................................
37
6.1.
Summary of Surface Features at 31 ST289......................................................................................125
8.1.
Archaeological Sites Identified by the Survey................................................................................172
xi

This page intentionally left blank.
xii

1. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an archaeological survey of the New London Mine project (the Project)
and an NRHP evaluation of the Parker Gold Mine site in Stanly County, North Carolina (Figures 1.1 and
1.2). In addition to that work, a small cemetery situated immediately outside of the Project (the Parker
cemetery) was recorded. The work was conducted by TRC on behalf of Boulder Associates, LLC., as part
of the permitting requirements for proposed mining activities on an irregularly shaped, privately owned
tract located southwest of New London and west of NC 52. The Project area encompasses about 293 acres
and includes broad ridges and associated slopes dissected by two small tributaries that feed Town Creek.
The fieldwork was directed by Bruce Idol of TRC and occurred from July 6-28, 2021.
This study was conducted to produce information on any significant cultural resources that might be present
in the Project area to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and so that the
information could be considered for planning purposes. The survey satisfies the requirements for an
intensive archaeological survey as defined by the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office and Office
of State Archaeology (HPO/OSA) and complies with the OSA's (2017) Archaeological Investigation
Standards and Guidelines.
The remainder of this report contains the detailed results of this research. Chapters 2 and 3 provide
environmental and cultural contexts for the area, followed by Chapter 4, which details the research goals
and methods. Chapter 5 presents the results of the archaeological survey. The results of the evaluation of
the Parker Mine site are presented in Chapter 6, and documentation of the Parker cemetery is presented in
Chapter 7. Chapter 8 contains a summary and recommendations and is followed by a list of references cited
in the text. Appendix 1 is the artifact catalog. Digital archaeological site forms and one cemetery form have
been submitted to the NC HPO/OSA under separate cover.

Figure 1.1. Location of the New London Mine Project area in southern North Carolina.
2

�' APE I
•.31ST277 31ST282 /
31ST273 l . ��`� , (40
O
31ST284
31ST280 �• 31ST283
o 31 ST278 �% �L,
o 31 ST286
J
31ST287 \
% j o
• `\
q 31ST281 /% 31ST28S
� x
Q 31ST275 31ST276 Jct
31ST289 Norm
`! Parker Mine
'1
IIIum&XV
!!tom 4FA \ , e• • `O i o -os .e •`- , •-•
QuadrangleUSGS Z5 Minute series
NEW • ►•
VA 0 4,000
Feet
w — — — —
Figure 1.2. Archaeological sites in the New London Mine Project area in Stanly County, North Carolina.
3

This page intentionally left blank.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PROJECT SETTING
The project area is located in the southern Piedmont of North Carolina in the northern portion of Stanly
County west of the town of New London. The Project area encompasses about 293 acres within an
irregularly shaped, privately owned tract located southwest of New London and west of NC 52, and includes
broad ridges and associated slopes dissected by two small tributaries of Town Creek. The Project area is
bounded to the north by Steakhouse Road (SR 1440) and privately owned parcels, to the east by the Norfolk
Southern tracks and private and commercial properties, and by privately owned parcels to the south and
west. Most of the Project area is wooded, but small areas have been cleared and graded to a gravelly
substratum (e.g., Figures 2.1 and 2.2), and there is an extensive network of graded roads (most of which are
unusable). A small lake (possibly representing an abandoned quarry) is also present on the property (Figure
2.3). Much of the northern part of the Project area has been cut well below grade especially in the area
around the lake, itself possibly a source of borrow fill (Figure 2.4). Evidence of modern -era grading is
prominent, particularly around the usable roads and in the northern neck of the Project area generally, where
prominent spoil piles are present (e.g., Figures 2.5 and 2.6). Scattered trash dumps with mid- to late
twentieth century artifacts (e.g., auto or truck related parts, tires, plastic and metal oil cans, aerosol cans,
paint cans, beverage cans) were found periodically along the passable roads, in addition to demolition or
industrial debris (e.g., modern bricks and cement slabs, and an apparent coal ash dump) that appear to have
been deposited by large vehicles (e.g., Figures 2.7 and 2.8).
PHYSIOGRAPHY, HYDROLOGY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS
The project area is situated in the Piedmont physiographic region east of the Blue Ridge Mountains within
the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion, which is characterized by mineral -rich, metavolcanic and
metasedimentary rocks, clayey soils, dissected, erosional terrain of irregular plains with rolling hills, and
rugged and hilly terrain in and around the Uwharrie Mountains (Griffith et al. 2002; Markewich et al. 1990;
North Carolina Geological Survey [NCGS] 1985; Stephens 1989). Elevations in Stanly County range from
ca. 167 to 833 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Elevations at the Project area range from ca. 570 to 700
feet AMSL.
The project area is in the Carolina Slate Belt (NCGS 1985). The underlying metamorphic rock is mapped
as meta-mudstone and meta-argillite, interbedded with meta -sandstone, meta -conglomerate, and
metavolcanic rock (NCGS 1985). The volcanic -sedimentary rock formations include volcanic slates, basic
and acid tuffs, and breccias and flows that are interbedded, and the volcanic rocks are intruded in some
areas by granites (Griffith et al. 2002). Metavolcanic stone (especially dacite, rhyodacite, or as more
commonly known, rhyolite) was important in precontact times for the manufacture of stone tools and can
be found throughout the Slate Belt in varying density and quality. Soapstone outcrops also occur in the
Piedmont but are not plentiful. Andesite and greenstone were encountered throughout the Project area, but
no rhyolite or soapstone outcrops were observed.
Online soils data indicate that the upland areas are mapped as Georgeville, Tarrus channery, or similar soils
(USDA NRCS 2020). These are all well to moderately well -drained soils formed in residuum and are prone
to erosion when exposed. Soils mapped in the Project area include Badin channey silt loam (BaB, 2-8%
slopes, and BaD, 8-15% slopes), Georgeville silt loam on 4-15% slopes (GmQ and 15-45% slopes,
extremely bouldery (GmF), Enon very cobbly loam, very stony (EmC, 4-15% slopes), Kirksey silt loam
(KkB, 0-6% slopes), Oakboro silt loam (OaA, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded), Tarrus channery silt loam
(TbB, 2-8% slopes, and TbD, 8-15% slopes), Tarrus channery silty clay loam (TcB2, 2-8% slopes), and
Udorthents, loamy (Table 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Graded and cleared area on southern ridgetop in west half of Project area, facing north.
Figure 2.2. Graded and cleared area in cast half of Project area, facing northeast.

Figure 2.3. Artificial lake in northern part of Project area, facing northeast.
Figure 2.4. Extensive borrow area surrounding lake, facing northwest.
7

I 3,'
Fv-
Z,, r'*
Yam'
1
lie
r,Aim
M t
t
f
Las �
4 - .1

Figure 2.7. Southern end of concrete slab dump, facing northeast.
Figure 2.8. Coal ash pile in east half of Project area, facing southwest.

Table 2.1. Soils within the Proiect Area.
Map Unit
Estimated
Percent of
Symbol
Soil Type
Acreage
Survey Area
BaB
Badin channey silt loam 2-8% slopes
2.7
0.9%
BaD
Badin channey silt loam 8-15% slopes
1.7
0.6%
EnC
Enon very cobbly loam, very stony 4-15% slopes
10.3
3.5%
GmC
Georgeville silt loam on 4-15% slopes
90.0
30.7%
GmF
Georgeville silt loam on 15-45% slopes, bouldery
69.9
23.9%
KkB
Kirksey silt loam 0-6% slopes
9.6
3.3%
LgB
Lloyd gravelly loam 2-8% slopes
6.1
2.1%
OaA
Oakboro silt loam 0-2% slopes frequently flooded
1.1
0.4%
TbB
Tarrus channery silt loam 2-8% slopes
35.7
12.2%
TbD
Tarrus channery silt loam 8-15% slopes
14.0
4.8%
TcB2
Tarrus channery silty clay loam 2-8% slopes
8.0
2.7%
TdB
Tarrus Urban land complex 2-8% slopes
0.1
0.0%
W
Water
0.8
0.3%
Ud Udorthents, loamy 37.3 12.7%
Georgeville series soils are deep, well -drained, and found on hill slopes on ridges (e.g., Figure 2.9). These
are formed in residuum weathered from metavolcanics and/or argillite and are generally bouldery. A few
boulder outcrops were encountered on the tract (e.g., Figures 2.10 and 2.11), and rocky, gravelly soils were
the norm. Tarrus channery silt loam is a well -drained soil found on interfluves; it is characterized by a
sequence of gravelly silt loam overlying clay and is formed in residuum weathered from metavolcanics
and/or argillite. Tarrus channery silty clay loam is similar to Tarrus channery silt loam; it is formed in
residuum weathered from schist and/or metamorphic rock and has a silty clay loam surface layer. Lloyd
gravelly loam is another well -drained soil found on interfluves and is formed in saprolite derived from
diorite and or gabbro and/or diabase and/or gneiss. It has a gravelly loam surface layer. Udorthents refers
to loamy or similar soils, including fill derived from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock (USDA
NRCS 2020).
Two first order streams flow south through the Project area and join an unnamed tributary of Town Creek
south of the Project; that tributary flows southwest to join Town Creek south of SR 1436. Town Creek
flows generally southward and drains into Melchor Branch in Albemarle. Melchor Branch flows east and
then south to enter Little Long Creek, which flows to the southwest to join Long Creek. Long Creek flows
southward before entering Big Bear Creek in the southern part of the county. Big Bear
Creek empties into the Rocky River at the Stanly County/Anson County line, and the Rocky River flows
south and then loops eastward to join the Pee Dee River below its Lake Tillery impoundment. The Pee Dee
flows southeast into South Carolina before entering the Atlantic Ocean at Winyah Bay.
MODERN CLIMATE
The climate of Stanly County is generally temperate, characterized by hot summers and moderately cold
winters. The area averages about 210 frost -free days each year from April through October. The mean
yearly precipitation is about 47 inches, falling primarily in the spring, summer, and fall (Stephens 1989).
10

'�
�a¢�
i 222 1
All
1 _ •
1
Alf
WOMEN!
.i-p�
�M
i

Figure 2.11. Boulder outcrop in southwestern corner of east half of Project area, facing east.
FLORA AND FAUNA
The vegetation within the study area is a product of changes in land use practices during the last few
centuries, from forest to farmland, back to forest and now spreading urbanization and suburbanization
(Griffith et al. 2002). Oak -Hickory -Pine forests dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak
(Q. falcata), post oak (Q. stellata), and hickory (Carya spp.), with some shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) and
loblolly pine (P. taeda) have been altered by cultivation and later development; much of this region has
reverted to successional pine and hardwood woodlands, with some pasture and croplands (Griffith et al.
2002). The forests supported a variety of undergrowth species, including several varieties of edible berries,
such as blackberries and raspberries (Rubus spp.) and huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.), as well as numerous
other species used for food and medicinal purposes. Once largely in cultivation, most Piedmont soils in the
uplands are moderately to severely eroded (Trimble 1974).
The varied environments in the area would have supported a substantial and diverse fauna during and prior
to Euro-American settlements (Lefler 1967). Potential game species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). Deer and turkey would have been
especially numerous in sub -climax forest settings such as clearings created by forest burning. (In fact, John
Lawson's [Lefler 1967] description of the Piedmont region between the lower Yadkin and Catawba river
valleys in 1701 is of a savanna -like grassland, with only scattered trees.) Other species present include
beaver (Castor canadensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), otter (Lutra canadensis), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethica), wolf (Canis sp.) panther (Felis concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and box turtle
(Terrapene carolina) (Shelford 1963). Avian species of possible economic importance included turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) and smaller species; other species may have been valuable non-food resources as
well. The Yadkin/Pee Dee River and its tributaries would have provided a variety of fish, including catfish
12

(Ictaluridae), sunfish (Centrarchidae), redhorse (Moxostoma), and largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) and
smallmouth (Micropterus dolomieui) bass.
13

This page intentionally left blank.
14

3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
This chapter presents an overview of the precontact and historic period occupations of the southern
Piedmont of North Carolina. Much of the earlier part of the cultural sequence for the region is based on
Coe's (1952, 1964) investigations of the precontact cultures of North Carolina, combined with more recent
research (e.g., Claggett and Cable 1982; Daniel 1998). The later Native American occupations of the region
have been discussed by various researchers, including Bordeaux (2005), Oliver (1992), Ward (1983) and
Ward and Davis (1993, 1999), and others.
The archaeological record of the area can be divided into five basic time and cultural periods. These
periods—Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and Contact —relate to both social and
technological factors. Several authors (e.g., Coe 1952, 1964; Bordeaux (2005), Ward and Davis 1993, 1999)
divide some or all of these periods into phases, some of which overlap in time and name, but vary in precise
definition (Table 3.1).
Much of our knowledge concerning contact -era and later post -contact lifeways and material culture comes
from the northeast -central Piedmont along the Haw, Eno, and Dan rivers (e.g., Eastman 1999; Ward and
Davis 1993). Excavations in these valleys have documented later trends and developments in native
societies, including evidence for direct or indirect contact with European (mainly English) traders. More
recent work has explored the nature of Catawba occupation during the eighteenth to early nineteenth
centuries in South Carolina (e.g., Cranford 2018; Davis and Riggs 2004; Davis et al. 2009, 2015; Fitts 2015;
Fitts et al. 2007).
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,500-8000 B.C.)
The earliest broadly acknowledged human presence in the continental United States dates to approximately
12,500 B.P., during the Paleoindian period. The most well-known cultural manifestation of this occupation
is called Clovis, which is represented by distinctive, fluted projectile points that have been found over a
wide geographic area in the United States. But there is also an increasing number of sites that indicate (if
not conclusively demonstrate) a pre -Clovis occupation in the Americas; such regional sites include
Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania (Adovasio et al. 1990, 1999); Saltville in Virginia (McDonald
2000; Weisner 1996); Cactus Hill in Virginia (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997); Topper in South Carolina
(Goodyear and Steffy 2003); and the Sloth Hole and Page-Ladson sites in Jefferson County, Florida
(Dunbar 2002, 2006; Hemmings 1999, 2004). Although none of those sites is without controversy, those
and other sites (e.g., Monte Verde in Chile [Meltzer et al. 1997]) have forced archaeologists to revisit their
models for how and when people first arrived in the Americas (e.g., Anderson and Gillam 2000).
Most researchers believe that the human occupation of North America began with a migration of people
from Asia across the Bering land bridge, which would have been exposed from 20,000 B.P. to perhaps as
late as 10,000 B.P. due to lower sea levels associated with the Last Glacial Maximum (Anderson and Gillam
2000; Dixon 1999, 2001; Fladmark 1979; Hoffecker et al. 1993:48; Meltzer 1988, 2004; Smith 1986). Once
in North America, the method and timing of migration south into the Americas remain issues of debate.
Some researchers have argued that an ice -free corridor allowed for movement into the interior of the
continent sometime after 11,000 B.P. (e.g., Haynes 1966, 1969, 1971), while others have suggested that
early settlers, once having occupied Beringia, followed a coastal route to colonize the Americas (e.g., Dixon
1999; Faught 2008; Fiedel 2000; Fladmark 1979).
15

Table 3.1. Generalized Cultural Chronology for the Southern Piedmont of North Carolina.
Period Phase Chronologv
Late Woodland to Contact Carawa3
Mississippian Pee Dee
A.D.1500 1700
A.D.1000-1500
Middle Woodland Yadkin ? —A.D. 800
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Early Woodland Yadkin 1000? B.C.—A.D. 800T
Badin 1000? B.C.—A.D. 800?
Late Archaic
Middle Archaic
Early Archaic
Savannah River
..........
Guilford
Morrow Mountain
Kirk/Palmer
Hardawav/Small Dalton
3000-1000 B.C.
4000-3000 B.C.
6000-4000 B.C.
6000-5500 B.C.
............................................................................
7500-6000 B.C. T
8000-7500 B.C.
Paleoindian Undefined (Hardaway -Dalton?) 9000-8000 B.C. T
........ ......... ......... ......... ................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ......... ......... .........
Clovis 10,500-9000 B.C.
Pre-Paleoindian Undifferentiated Unknown
T represents overlap into a later period.
Based on a study of Paleoindian settlement patterns, Anderson and Gillam (2000:43) have developed a
comprehensive model concerning the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. The study analyzed paths
at a continental scale, to determine which routes would have afforded the least cost to traveling hunter -
gatherers. Factors in the model included topographic relief, locations of ice sheets and pluvial lakes, and
the location of known Paleoindian archaeological sites. The findings suggest that initial dispersal occurred
in coastal and riverine settings and on plains, and that founding populations probably spread and diversified
rapidly. The model also implies that now -submerged portions of the continental shelf may have been
important for early dispersal, whether by foot or by boat (Erlandson et al. 2005). In eastern North America,
this is reflected in the distribution of sites along the Atlantic Coastal Plain and the paucity of sites in the
Appalachian Mountains, which were a barrier to mobility.
Diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts include fluted and unfluted lanceolate projectile points (such as Clovis and
Cumberland points); flake tools such as endscrapers, gravers, retouched blades, and burins are also found.
Almost all of the Paleoindian materials found in the Southeast have come from surface contexts, and as a
result few data are available concerning regional subsistence or social organization (Anderson 1990).
Hunting of late Pleistocene megafauna is inferred based on evidence from other areas, although direct
evidence for use of animals of any kind is rare in the region. Most, if not all, Paleoindian populations
probably relied extensively on other animal and plant foods as well (Meltzer and Smith 1986). Paleoindian
populations were generally highly mobile, and settlements are thought to have included small temporary
camps and less common base camps that were occupied by loosely organized bands. Paleoindians selected
high -quality lithic materials for tools, and many sites are linked to important source areas (e.g., Smallwood
et al. 2018).
Although Paleoindian projectile points in private collections are uncommon, they are comparatively well
represented in the North Carolina Piedmont (e.g., Daniel 1998, 2000, 2005). The later Paleoindian phase
appears to include Dalton (Goodyear 1982) and Hardaway (Ward 1983) points. Available dates for early
side notched points follow closely behind those associated with fluted points (e.g., Driskell 1996; Goodyear
1982). The Hardaway -Dalton style shares obvious affinities with the widespread Dalton style, a type
defined for the broader southeastern region (Goodyear 1982; Morse and Morse 1983).
16

Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1000 B.C.)
The Archaic period began with the onset of Holocene, post -glacial climatic conditions in the East and has
been subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late subperiods. Diagnostic projectile points are the primary
criteria used to identify and date Archaic manifestations. As a whole, the Archaic may be seen as a relatively
long and successful foraging adaptation, with subsistence based on hunting, fishing, and the collection of
wild plant resources. The period is also marked by a general increase in the density and dispersal of
archaeological remains, increased cultural diversity as reflected in more regionally distinct tool forms, and
the increased use of locally available lithic raw materials. There is also evidence of long-distance exchange
and regional -scale networks of social interaction, as well as status differentiation. Group size gradually
increased during this period, culminating in larger populations by the end of the period (Anderson and
Sassaman 2012). While Archaic groups certainly used a variety of materials to fashion utilitarian and other
items, lithic artifacts are all that remain on most sites in the Southeast due to the lack of preservation in
acidic soils. Architectural evidence is rare (cf., White and Steere 2014), suggesting that most structures
were not substantial constructions. Archaic sites have been the focus of intensive excavation in the North
Carolina Piedmont (e.g., Claggett and Cable 1982; Coe 1964), the Appalachian Summit region (e.g.,
Benyshek and Webb i.p., Shumate and Kimball 2016), and in eastern Tennessee in the Tellico area (e.g.,
Chapman 1977, 1981).
Early Archaic (ca. 8000-6000 B.C.). During the Early Archaic period, the mixed coniferous forests present
in much of the Southeast were replaced by mixed hardwood communities dominated by oak, hemlock,
beech, and maple (Claggett and Cable 1982:212), and a modern faunal assemblage was in place following
the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna. Diagnostic markers of the Early Archaic period in North
Carolina and eastern Tennessee include side notched Big Sandy projectile points and later Palmer -Kirk
projectile points (ca. 8000-6800 B.C.). Palmer and Kirk projectile points are fairly common and widespread
occurrences in the area but are sparse compared to Middle and Late Archaic types. Bifurcate -based points
such as the St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha types (ca. 6900-5800 B.C.) are also found in the area (Kimball
1985). Other tools that occur on Early Archaic sites include knives, adzes, end and side scrapers, drills,
perforators, and expedient tools (Stanyard 2003; Ward and Davis 1999). There are striking lithic artifact
similarities throughout the Southeast for this period, but tremendous variety in site size, content, and
function.
Low regional population densities and a continued high degree of group mobility are inferred for this period;
most known sites are located in high upland areas. The nature of more general land use patterns and
strategies for technological organization remains the subject of discussion (e.g., Anderson and Hanson
1988; Claggett and Cable 1982; Daniel 1998). The forests of the Piedmont would have provided a reliable
source and good variety of food, perhaps allowing groups to focus their settlement patterns on less widely
available resources, such as high -quality lithic material. Daniel (1998) suggests that quality raw material
sources, particularly Uwharrie rhyolite outcrops, were the focal point of the settlement patterns.
Middle Archaic (ca. 6000-4000 B.C.). During the Middle Archaic, the cool, moist conditions of the early
Holocene are generally considered to have given way to the warmer, drier climate of the Mid -Holocene
Hypsithermal interval (although there is increasing evidence that the Mountains may have seen increased
rainfall during this period [e.g., Leigh 2002]). Extensive estuarine marshes and riverine swamps began to
emerge in coastal regions as sea levels ceased their post -Pleistocene rise by 3000 B.C. The northern
hardwoods vegetation matrix in those regions was replaced by an oak -hickory forest, which was in turn
replaced by a southern hardwoods -pine forest characterized by the species occupying the region today
(Claggett and Cable 1982:212-216; Delcourt and Delcourt 1983, 1985). Subsistence economies became
increasingly diversified, particularly evident in the Mid -South and lower Midwest during the Shell Mound
Archaic, when riverine settings were chosen more often for occupation (Sassaman 1996). It is assumed that
population density increased during the Middle Archaic period (Anderson 1996), but small hunting and
17

gathering bands probably still formed the primary social and economic units. Populations during this period
appear to have relied primarily on a foraging -based economy (Anderson 1996:174). Larger sites tend to
occur near or along river floodplains, but numerous small sites, probably utilized for specialized resource
extraction, are characteristic of upland locales.
Much of our understanding of the Middle Archaic period in Piedmont North Carolina comes from research
conducted at a few well stratified floodplain sites along the Yadkin/Pee Dee River, such as Doerschuk and
Lowders Ferry. Three subperiods recognized in most of North Carolina are identified by the presence of
Stanly (ca. 6000-5000 B.C.), Morrow Mountain (ca. 5000-4200 B.C.), and Guilford (ca. 4200-3500 B.C.)
projectile points, following the classic Archaic sequence first identified by Coe (1964). Archaeologically,
the transition from the Early Archaic to the Middle Archaic is characterized by the appearance of stemmed
rather than notched projectile points and an increased incidence of groundstone tools. Reliance on locally
available quartz and quartzite, rather than higher quality non -local chert, for stone tools increased in the
Appalachian Summit and other areas, such as other parts of North Carolina, northern Georgia, and South
Carolina. Atlatl weights and stone net sinkers make their first appearance in the archaeological record
during the Middle Archaic, and the use of expedient stone tool technology (the manufacture of tools for
immediate use) predominates during this time (Stanyard 2003).
Based on studies in South Carolina, researchers (e.g., Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Sassaman 1983) have
suggested that Morrow Mountain peoples were foragers who resided at a location until local resources were
depleted (a pattern similar to Binford's [1980] residential mobility). This idea is consistent with an
archaeological pattern characterized by local raw material utilization, the wide distribution of sites in
various landscape settings and their small size, the lack of evidence for long-term occupations, and the
absence of discernible substantial trade networks (Stanyard 2003:48-49).
Late Archaic (ca. 4000—ca. 1000 B.C.). Like Middle Archaic sites, Late Archaic sites are common in the
study area, although few have been the primary focus of archaeological investigations. The lower Southeast
in general saw an increase in sites from the Middle to Late Archaic, and most researchers agree that a
population increase is reflected in these data (Anderson 1996). Large Late Archaic sites are found in river
floodplains, and some of these have characteristics of intensive occupations not seen in earlier periods, in
the form of occupation middens, high feature density, and circular pit hearths (Coe 1964:119). The
existence of formal base camps occupied seasonally or longer is inferred, together with a range of smaller
resource -exploitation sites, such as hunting, fishing, or plant collecting stations (Claggett and Cable 1982;
Mathis 1979; Ward 1983). Grinding implements, polished stone tools, and carved soapstone bowls became
fairly common, suggesting increased use of plant resources, and possibly changes in subsistence strategies
and cooking technologies. Although regional evidence is minimal, the first experiments with horticulture
probably occurred at this time, with the cultivation of plants such as squash (Cucurbita pepo), sunflower
(Helianthus sp.), and Chenopodium (Cowan 1985; Ford 1981; Smith 1989).
Late Archaic occupations in the Piedmont are marked by a variety of large to smaller stemmed points. The
most prominent and recognizable of these is the Savannah River stemmed type (Claflin 1931), a large,
broad -bladed, square -stemmed point that appeared ca. 3000 B.C. and lasted to ca. 1500 B.C. Subsequent
Late Archaic sites frequently contain slightly smaller stemmed points (Ward and Davis 1999:71), and there
is some evidence for a reduction in size of these stemmed forms over the course of the Late Archaic/Early
Woodland in the region (Oliver 1981, 1985). The most common feature type during the Late Archaic is the
rock hearth or pit (Chapman 1981; Coe 1964; Keel 1976). Toward the end of the Late Archaic, fiber
tempered pottery appeared in the coastal regions (Sassaman 1993). There is increased evidence for trade
during the Late Archaic period, as indicated by the presence of soapstone, slate, and other materials outside
their source areas (Chapman 1985).
IN

The existence of formal base camps occupied seasonally or longer is inferred, together with a range of
smaller resource -exploitation sites, such as hunting, fishing, or plant collecting stations (Claggett and Cable
1982; Mathis 1979; Ward 1983). Large Late Archaic sites are found in river floodplains, as at the Gaston,
Doerschuk, and Lowders Ferry sites, and some of these have characteristics of intensive occupations not
seen in earlier periods, in the form of occupation middens and higher feature density (Coe 1964:119).
Woodland Period (ca. 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1000)
The Woodland period in the North Carolina Piedmont began around 1000 B.C., although dated evidence
suggests a ca. A.D. 500 date for the earliest use of ceramics in some areas. Subsistence strategies may have
included increased reliance on the cultivation of native and non-native (tropical) plants, although evidence
for plant cultivation is (at best) scanty until the Late Woodland transition. Ceramics became more
diversified with respect to temper and surface decoration, and sub -regional differences become more
evident. Triangular projectile points are diagnostic of the later Middle and Late Woodland periods, linked
to the introduction of bow and arrow technology, the timing and nature of which probably varied across the
region (see Nassaney and Pyle 1999). In the later part of the Woodland sequence, occupations are
characterized by an increasing focus on riverine floodplain locations.
Early Woodland (ca. 500 B.C.-A.D. 200). Initial Woodland occupations are generally thought to reflect a
largely unchanged continuation of Late Archaic lifeways coupled with the first widespread introduction of
ceramics. Early Woodland period occupations in the Piedmont are represented by the Badin and Yadkin
ceramic series, which appear to overlap in time (Ward and Davis 1999:85; Webb and Leigh 1995). Badin
ceramics are sand tempered and stamped with either a cord wrapped or fabric wrapped paddle (Coe
1964:27-29). Yadkin series ceramics are finished with cord wrapped and fabric wrapped paddles, but also
with carved paddles, producing designs such as check stamping, linear check stamping, and simple
stamping, and are tempered with crushed quartz (Coe 1964:30-32). The Swannanoa series of the
Appalachian Summit region, which dates ca. 1000-200 B.C., appears roughly equivalent to the Yadkin
series (Keel 1976). Ceramic manufacturing techniques continued into the subsequent Middle Woodland
period, characterized by different combinations of elements—cordmarking, fabric impression, and check
stamping surface treatment, and coarse sand or crushed quartz temper (Coe 1964:30-32).
Associated projectile points largely conform to two separate traditions. The first of these is defined by a
simple reduction in size from earlier Late Archaic stemmed styles. Gypsy stemmed points appear to
represent a continued trend toward diminution in size for stemmed points, essentially developing out of the
small Savannah River stemmed type (Oliver 1981:188-189). Other varieties related to Early Woodland
occupations include small, contracting stemmed points similar to the Piscataway and Rossville types, and
similar points have been recovered from Early Woodland contexts in North Carolina (Kirchen 2001:44).
Early use of large triangular points, such as the Badin and Yadkin types (Oliver 1985), likely accompanied
the continued use of stemmed points for some time.
The lifeways of Early Woodland peoples seem to have changed little from those of their Late Archaic period
predecessors. A settlement pattern characterized by relatively permanent river -bottom base camps and
specialized upland exploitation camps is inferred (Mathis 1979). Although Early Woodland use of certain
cultigens may have increased from earlier times, the main staples were still oil -rich nuts and other wild
plants and the large game animals, such as white-tailed deer. To date, no well-defined Early Woodland
structures have been identified in the region.
Middle Woodland (ca. A.D. 200— 1000). During the Middle Woodland period (ca. A.D. 200 to 1000) in the
North Carolina Piedmont, it appears that gradual changes occurred, so that the later part of the Middle
Woodland more closely resembles the subsequent period than the preceding Early Woodland period. The
timing of the change in artifact styles, especially ceramics, appears variable throughout the region. Ceramic
19

artifacts dating to this period include a continuation of the Yadkin series and the introduction of the
Uwharrie series. During this time, triangular point types (such as Yadkin Large Triangular) represent the
continued refinement of bow and arrow technology in the region.
Horticulture may have assumed increasing importance, and the cultivation of maize may have been initiated
at this time, although it did not gain prominence until much later. Compared to previous periods, it appears
that site density increased considerably, especially along river floodplains (Ward and Davis 1993; Woodall
1984, 1990). Numerous large and small sites have been found dating to this period, suggesting periodic
aggregation and dispersion, or some kind of a village/base camp dichotomy in the settlement patterning.
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1500)
In general, the Mississippian does not replace the Late Woodland as a distinct cultural period in North
Carolina, as it does for a large part of the southeastern United States; in much of the Yadkin Valley, for
example, the essential Late Woodland pattern may extend up to the time of European contact. However,
the archaeological record of the southern Piedmont lends itself to this traditional Southeastern cultural
sequence. A Mississippian manifestation in the southern central Piedmont is largely synonymous with the
Pee Dee phase. Excavation began at Town Creek in 1937, and subsequent work at the Town Creek mound
and village directed by Coe and at additional sites by Oliver and others has produced considerable
information about Pee Dee occupation (Boudreaux 2005, 2007; Coe 1995; Oliver 1992).
Pee Dee sites are confined to the southern North Carolina Piedmont, encompassing parts of present-day
Anson, Richmond, Stanly, and Montgomery counties. The Town Creek Mound and village (31MG2 and
31MG3) is the best-known Pee Dee site, but over 60 additional sites of various sizes are known (Mountjoy
1989; Oliver 1992:254-255). The Town Creek site is composed of a platform mound and an intensively
used habitation area; the mound overlooked a large plaza around which ceremonial activities were
performed. There is evidence for five episodes of stockade building, with most of these occurring before
the construction of the mound (Coe 1995:87). The mound was built over an earlier, rectangular structure,
possibly an earth -lodge or public building (Coe 1995:65-72). An abundance and variety of burial types
were represented at the site, including flexed and extended adult interments and infant urn burials. Many
of the burials occurred in clusters or mortuary areas, and some of these were associated with exotic trade
items. By A.D. 1400, Town Creek was used less intensively. Evidence for a much later, post -Pee Dee
occupation there is indicated by a few flexed burials with trade beads (Coe 1995:264).
Complicated stamping dominates the Town Creek ceramic assemblage, although textile impressed, plain
surfaced and other varieties are also well represented (Boudreaux 2007; Oliver 1992:247; Reid 1967). The
Town Creek phase has been subdivided into early and late segments based on differential vessel rim
attribute sets (Boudreaux 2007), which compare favorably to a multitude of Mississippian phases found to
the south (Boudreaux 2007:32-33).
Research by Mountjoy (1989), Oliver (1992), and Boudreaux (2007) has demonstrated that fine cord
marked (Savannah Fine Cord Marked), cob impressed, simple stamped, and complicated stamped pottery
in North Carolina similar to the Savannah and Etowah series in Georgia likely preceded mound building at
Town Creek. Although artifacts exhibiting great typological similarities with those produced in early
Mississippian areas to the south appear before A.D. 1000, it seems that only later did other traits that
archaeologists associate with the Mississippian (such as mound -building) appear in the region.
The Mississippian culture in anthropological terms is closely synonymous with the political activities of
chiefdoms. It is likely that Town Creek was integrated in a chiefdom network that included sites such as
Irene to the south (in Georgia). The dates suggested above for the Mississippian are based largely on the
mound -construction period at Town Creek and extended through apparent related manifestations at the non-
20

mound Teal site. Pee Dee pottery at Town Creek bears many similarities to the Savannah series, but also
shares motifs with the Pisgah phase to the west in the mountains and early Lamar phases to the south (Ward
and Davis 1999:130).
Oliver (1992) identified three successive Pee Dee phases: Teal, Town Creek, and Leak. Oliver's date ranges
have been revised by Boudreaux (2007) as follows: Teal (cal. A.D. 1000-1200), Town Creek (cal. A.D.
1150-1300), and Leak (cal. A.D. 1300-1500). The Teal site represents the earliest phase of development
(Teal phase), followed by the Town Creek phase. The Leak site represents occupation overlapping the later
part of the Town Creek sequence but extending beyond it (as the Leak phase).
Ceramic styles from ca. A.D. 950 are closely linked to regions to the south. It follows that these styles were
part of the stylistic universe of pot makers for an extended period of time, one that was not largely shared
by Woodland groups to the north. The first of these is represented by Savannah Creek series fine cord
marked and complicated stamped pottery, identical to that found at the Irene mound site and related
habitations (Oliver 1992:238). Oliver inferred an advancement of the Irene -centered chiefdom based on
similarities in ceramic styles between the areas. Excavation at the Teal site (31AN1) revealed the presence
of a structure associated with human effigies, incised stone, burial urns, and a square cross gorget; the latter
is often associated with emergent Mississippian occupations (Kneberg 1959:38-39; Muller 1989:14-15;
Oliver 1992:243), although an identical artifact has been found at the Late Woodland period Donnaha site
in the northwestern North Carolina Piedmont (Woodall 1984:61). A specialized, ritual use was inferred for
the Teal site structure.
As use of the Town Creek mound "center" declined, outlying sites (including the Leak site) may have
grown in importance (Oliver 1992:251-252). There was continued use of several characteristic Pee Dee
ceramic attributes (the appearance of exterior brushing, and increasing frequencies of net impressed ware,
certain varieties of stamping, and certain adjunct decoration types [Boudreaux 2007]). These changes
appear to mirror the material culture of contemporary Mississippian areas to the south and may be related
to the changing nature of chiefdom institutions over much of the Southeast. Ceremonial activities are
suggested by unfinished spatulate axes, stone and clay disks, and burial urns (Oliver 1992:252). Ward and
Davis (1999:132-133), relying on corrected dates for the Leak phase, suggest that the Leak phase ends
closer to A.D. 1500 than A.D. 1600, allowing time for a separate (and subsequent) Caraway phase in the
southern Piedmont sequence to develop.
Late Precontact to Contact Period (ca. A.D. 1500-1700)
The late precontact to contact -period Native American occupation of this portion of the North Carolina
Piedmont is represented by archaeological manifestations of the late Dan River, Hillsboro, Early Saratown,
and Caraway phases. The Caraway phase essentially marks a return to the Piedmont Village tradition in the
southern Piedmont (Ward and Davis 1999:137). Representing the precontact to contact -era occupations of
the southern North Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964; Ward and Davis 1999), the Caraway phase remains
poorly defined. Excavations in the 1930s at the Poole site (31RD1) revealed several burials (associated with
items such as shell beads and gorgets) and other pit features, but only one excavated feature yielded glass
beads and kaolin trade pipe fragments— evidence for European contact (Coe 1936, 1937).
Caraway pottery has been characterized as a mixture of northern (net impressed) and southern (stamped)
styles. Plain (smoothed) and burnished wares dominate the later half of the sequence, with an admixture of
complicated stamped and simple stamped surface treatments (Ward and Davis 1999:137). This is similar to
contemporary manifestations to the north characterized by the Oldtown series (Early Saratown Phase) and
reflected in later assemblages at the Lower Saratown, Wall, and Hairston sites (Ward and Davis 1999:137;
Wilson 1983). This blending of characteristics may speak to both the nature of late precontact interaction
and later dissolution after contact with Euro-Americans, but it is difficult to differentiate the remains of
21

contact to post -contact -era remains at the Poole site with the apparent earlier materials present (Ward and
Davis 1999:137).
The late precontact period in the southern Piedmont is also represented by later manifestations of the
Uwharrie series. Uwharrie ceramics are fabric, cord, or net impressed, quartz tempered, usually scraped on
the interior, and occasionally crudely incised. Most of the later Uwharrie pottery is net impressed, often
with scraped interiors, and tempered with varying amounts of crushed quartz. Defined from the type site in
the Pee Dee Valley, similarities with Uwharrie ceramics are evident in later phases recognized in the Haw
and Dan River valleys. Uwharrie phase sites in the region reflect more intensive and long-term occupations.
Piedmont Village Tradition groups are presumed to have had an egalitarian social organization based on
kinship ties and do not appear to have been integrated into chiefly hierarchies. Subsistence evidence
indicates a mix of hunting, gathering, and cultivation, and faunal assemblages include a variety of climax
forest and forest edge species. Large storage pits are found at some sites, and small triangular arrow points
(such as Caraway Triangular) appear ubiquitous sometime after ca. A.D. 1000. A similar manifestation, the
Haw River phase, has been defined for the north -central Piedmont region. Settlement during this time
appears to have been dispersed and somewhat similar to that of the Uwharrie phase, although settlements
along secondary streams were also common (Ward and Davis 1993:407; Ward and Davis 1999:103-104).
Uwharrie series pottery appears ancestral to that of the Haw River series, defined for the later part of the
Haw River phase, which is generally characterized by changes in vessel morphology and greater decorative
elaboration (Ward and Davis 1993:408).
HISTORIC PERIOD OVERVIEW
Post -Contact Period Native American Occupation
The post -contact period Native American occupation of the North Carolina Piedmont has been documented
through both historic documents and excavations at several sites, including Keyauwee Town in Randolph
County (Coe 1937) and the Mitchum (Ward and Davis 1993), Jenrette (Ward and Davis 1993), and
Fredericks (Occaneechi Town) sites in Orange County (Davis and Ward 1991; Davis et al. 1998). More
recently, excavations at several sites in the lower Catawba Valley have yielded important information
concerning the experience of the Catawba Indians from early contact with European traders through the
mid -nineteenth century (e.g., Davis and Riggs 2004; Davis et al. 2015; Fitts 2006; Fitts et al. 2007).
Lawson's journal notes a ca. 1701 encounter with the Keyauwee that may have occurred near Caraway
Creek in Randolph County (Lefler 1967:56-58). Lawson described Keyauwee as a well populated and
stockaded village surrounded by cornfields. Similarly, Lawson described the settlement of Saponi Town on
the Yadkin River as a palisaded town in "a clear field, about a mile square" (Lefler 1967:52), but there is
little excavation evidence of any such occupations; excavations around the Trading Ford location have
produced no contact period artifacts (Howell and Dearborn 1953:10-11).
The Mitchum site, located on the Haw River in northern Chatham County, is thought to represent mid -
seventeenth century settlement by the Sissipahaw Indians (Ward and Davis 1993). It consisted of a small,
stockaded village with at least one oval -shaped house; a small number of graves contained associated glass
trade beads and brass ornaments, and pipes similar to European forms that suggest the introduction of milder
strains of tobacco during this time (Ward and Davis 1993:367-368). Jenrette series ceramics, similar to
those of the Hillsboro series, are associated with the contact -era to early post -contact period occupation of
the Mitchum site.
The Jenrette site, located on the Eno River in northern Orange County, may represent a late seventeenth
century village of the Shakori Indians. This small, stockaded settlement was characterized by wall trench
house construction, storage and roasting pits, and plain and simple stamped ceramics. Limited contact with
22

Europeans during this time was indicated by glass trade beads, terra cotta pipes, and peach pits. The
Fredericks site, also known as Occaneechi Town, is adjacent to the Jenrette site, and was the early
eighteenth century village occupied by the Occaneechi.
The Fredericks site shows the intensified nature of the trade between Indians and Europeans; a variety of
utilitarian tools, including firearms, is associated with the Fredericks site occupation, although traditional
subsistence practices persisted. The presence of formal cemeteries also suggests the effects of epidemic
disease on the Native population. This small community contained 10-12 houses enclosed within a
stockade. Associated ceramics are plain or check stamped, and triangular arrow points (and other traditional
stone tool types) continued to be manufactured and used (Ward and Davis 1999:243-244).
As Merrell (1987:20-21, 1989) and other researchers have noted, the post -contact period was marked by
extensive epidemics among the Native American populations of the area, which, along with the increasing
arrival of Euro-American settlers into the Piedmont, forced the survivors to relocate and regroup. By the
1740s, most of the local Native American groups had amalgamated with other groups to the north and south
and no longer appear as distinct tribes in historical records, and much of the Piedmont appeared vacant to
the early European settlers. The remaining Saponi appear to have settled around Fort Christanna in Virginia
by 1716, and by 1728 had merged with other depleted Piedmont groups living there (Miller 1957:128).
Many of these later integrated with the Catawba between 1726 and 1739 (Davis and Riggs 2004:2; Mooney
1894; Rights 1947), and some moved north into Pennsylvania and New York (Swanton 1946:200-201).
Descendants of some of these groups continue to inhabit the Piedmont, however, and in recent years have
begun to reassert their identity. For example, it is very likely that some Saponi never went north or south
but remained in the North Carolina Piedmont throughout the eighteenth century (Hazel 1991:11; White
1982). The evidence that Native American groups lived in Alamance County in 1756 is substantial (e.g.,
Hazel 1991:12), and some of these families are associated with the establishment of the Texas community
in Orange and Alamance counties around the time of the Revolutionary War (Hazel 1991:14). Much of the
acreage acquired by 1820 continues to be occupied by the descendants today (Hazel 1991:15).
By 1715, several groups had merged with the Kadapau, Esaw, Sugeree, and Wateree tribes on the Catawba
River in upper South Carolina and were collectively referred to as Catawba. The Sara Indians (also Cheraw)
joined the Keyauwee tribe in the early eighteenth century and are later reported to have lived among the
Catawba. By 1750 this amalgamation of groups formed the Catawba Nation, a powerful political entity
situated astride the trading path that connected the interior of Virginia and the Carolinas and ultimately led
west to Cherokee territory (Brown 1966; Hudson 1970:31-39; Merrell 1989:176; Rights 1931; United
States Department of the Interior [USDOI] 2000: E 1-2).
Disease and war decreased the Catawba population and made the villages more reliant on traders for food,
ammunition, and clothing. By several estimates, smallpox killed nearly two thirds of the Catawba
population between 1740 and 1760, leaving a population of around 500 persons (Merrell 1989:117-126,
195). Increasing English and Scots -Irish settlement also threatened the Catawba's traditional hunting
grounds (Merrell 1989:171-176). In 1760, the Catawba allied with the colony of South Carolina in the
Cherokee War (Hudson 1970:49-51). As support from the colonial government dwindled after the end of
the Cherokee War, the Catawba began leasing their land to settlers to raise money (Merrell 1989:197-201,
209-210). Settlement increased to such a degree that it became necessary in 1764 to delineate a boundary
between North and South Carolina. In the same year, at the Catawba's request Samuel Wyly surveyed the
boundaries of traditional Catawba lands still in their control to use as proof of ownership against squatters.
A fraction of their original territory, the 15-mile square area included 144,000 acres along the Catawba
River from Twelve Mile Creek to beyond Steele Creek.
23

By the early nineteenth century, the Catawba Nation was reduced to a single community near Waxhaw Old
Fields, with an economy based largely on rent payments supplemented by agriculture and cottage industries
(Davis and Riggs 2004:4). During the 1840s, the Catawba were dispossessed of their tribal lands as a result
of a treaty with South Carolina, and for the next several decades were reduced to itinerant status. Gradually,
some Catawba began to move back to their former lands; by 1850 there were approximately 100 living on
what remained of their lands on the Catawba River (Merrell 1989:247-257; Shankman et al. 1983:37-38).
In the 1890 Federal Census, 66 persons were living on the Catawba Indian Reservation (USDOI 1897,
1901).
The twentieth century witnessed the gradual reemergence of the Catawba Nation on part of its ancestral
lands. In 1980, the Catawba Indian Nation filed suit against the state of South Carolina and local
landowners, asserting their legal right to the 144,000 acres that comprised their original reservation
established in 1760 (Kovacik and Winberry 1987:62-63). In 1993, the two sides reached an agreement that
allowed local landowners to keep their property, and awarded the Catawba Indian Nation $50 million, paid
by the federal government, the state of South Carolina, York and Lancaster counties, and private sources.
The Catawba Indian Nation also regained federal recognition as part of the settlement (Lee and Beard
1999:9-12).
Euro-American Settlement
Euro-American settlers gradually began to enter the area in the 1740 and 1750s; most arrived from
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey in search of available farmland (Powell 1989:122; Ramsey 1964).
Montgomery County was created in 1779 from part of Anson County. Stanly County was formed in 1841
from part of Montgomery County, and Albemarle was established as the county seat in 1857. The county
retains much of its rural character to the present.
Much early settlement was focused along watercourses, which provided power for mills as well as alluvial
land for farming. Settlement was restricted by the rugged topography in the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Valley
from the Narrows to the Uwharrie Mountains, however. Settlement of the Piedmont increased rapidly
following the Revolution. One small community developed around a general store and post office (Smith's
Store) in 1824, near the junction of the pike road and the Charlotte Road (NC24/27) in what is now
Albemarle (Crumbley 2005:3; Sharpe 1972). The large-scale development of hydropower along this reach
of the Yadkin began in the 1890s, with George Whitney's development of a dam and associated canal and
power plant; although Whitney soon went bankrupt, he was quickly succeeded by French interests, who
began development of L'Aluminum Francais and the Town of Badin. The French development was
purchased by Alcoa in 1915, which completed the Narrows Dam in 1917. The subsequent development of
hydropower along the Yadkin included the completion of Falls Development (1919), High Rock
Development (1928), and Tuckertown Development (1962) (Thomason and Associates 2005). The railroad
was extended to Albemarle in 1891, spurring industrial development; the Efird and Wiscassett textile mills
began operation during this time (Crumbley 2005:5).
The town of New London first developed around a post office run by David Kendall from his store in 1826;
the post office was eventually moved to the land owned by Tommy Biles and was renamed Bilesville in
1870 (Crumbley 2005:10). It was renamed New London and incorporated in 1891 after the new owners of
the nearby Parker Mine, when it was still a larger community than Albemarle; other than extensive gold
mining activity, other early industries included the New London cordage mill, the Yadkin brick company,
and the Culp lumber mill (https://www.newlondonnc.org/history�.
24

Gold Mining in Stanly County
The gold mining industry developed in North Carolina after 1800, following the discovery of gold in
Cabarrus County in 1799, and evolved with the changing economic conditions over the span of the next
two centuries (Botwick 2012; Hauser 2012; Hines and Smith 2002, 2006; Knapp and Glass 1999; LaPoint
1999; Pardee and Park 1948; Roberts 1971). Stanly County is situated in the productive gold fields that
straddle the Charlotte and Carolina Slate Belts in the southern Piedmont, and the industry developed from
farmers who searched for gold on their lands after the harvest, and required no outside investment (Hauser
2012; Knapp and Glass 1999:48). As described by Knapp and Glass (Botwick 2012; Knapp and Glass
1999), the gold mining industry helped introduce the innovations of steam power, wage labor, corporations,
and ultimately foreign investment to the North Carolina Piedmont (Knapp and Glass 1999:124).
In broad terms, the history of gold mining in the state can be characterized by three stages. The first was
the development of a fairly mature industry by 1840, which was completely disrupted by the Civil War.
This was followed by an uneven, sporadic revival of the industry until production ceased during WWI
(Botwick 2012). This long period included the implementation of new techniques and technologies,
speculation, and later outside investment. And finally, a brief revival of the industry during the 1930s
spurred by rising gold prices prior to WWII (Botwick 2012; Knapp and Glass 1999). During WWII "much
of the regional machinery was sold for scrap" (Botwick 2012:22). Efforts after the war (up to the present)
remain sporadic, such as those that occurred during the late twentieth century (Botwick 2012:22).
According to Bryson (Bryson 1936:12), the most important periods of production of gold in North Carolina
were the periods 1831-1843, 1882-1891, 1902-1906, and 1912-1915 (also see Knapp and Glass 1999).
Locally, Mathias Barringer discovered gold on his then -Montgomery property in 1825; this discovery led
to a more systematic search for similar sources in the region (Botwick 2012:12). The Barringer Mine was
established a few years later. A review of contemporary publications (e.g., Engineering and Mining Journal
1887; Emmons 1856; Kerr and Hanna 1893; Nitze and Hanna 1896; Nitze and Wilkens 1897; Pratt and
Berry 1919, and others) and later compilations (e.g., Bryson 1936; Lutrell 1978; Pardee and Park 1948)
which inventory gold mines in North Carolina have identified 20 mines that produced gold in Stanly County
during the nineteenth up to the early twentieth century (Table 3.2). That total undoubtedly excludes many
smaller operations run largely as cottage industries. Mines located in a ca. one -and -a -half -mile vicinity of
New London included the Parker, Johnny Parker, Biles, Cotton Patch, Crowell, and Flint Springs mines.
Table 3.2. Gold Mines in Stanlv Countv.
Name
Location*t
Type
Comments
Barringer
0.5-mile SW of Misenheimer
placer/lode
1828
Biles**
Stanly Co., near Salisbury
placer
pre-1887
Cotton Patch
New London
placer/lode
pre-1865
Crawford/Ingram
4 miles SE of Albemarle
placer/?
1892
Crowell
1.5 miles NE of New London
placer/lode
pre-1887
Eudy
8 miles W of Albemarle
placer/lode
ca. 1895
Fesperman
4 miles E of Albemarle
placer
no information
Flint Springs
1 mile E of New London
placer
pre-1887
Haithcock
2.5 miles W of Albemarle
placer/lode
mid-1880s
Hearne/Herne
2.5 miles W of Albemarle
placer/lode
pre-1856
Henderson
near New London
no information
no information
Jin Mine
Stanly County
no information
no information
Kimball Hill
2 miles NE of New London
placer/lode
pre-1865?
Little Fritz (formerly Culp)
near Gladstone
placer/?
1890s?
Lowder
2.5 miles W of Albemarle
placer/lode
1835
Mountain Creek
1.9 miles E of New London
no information
no information
Mumford
1 mile W of New London
placer
pre-1933
Johnny Parker
Stanly Co., near Salisbury
placer
pre-1887
Parker
New London
placer/lode
ca. 1805
25

Table 3.2. Gold Mines in Stanly County.
Name Location*t Type Comments
Thompson 5 miles E of Albemarle placer/lode pre-1906
*Sources: Carolina Watchman 1838, 1846, 1891; Carpenter 1993; Conley 1962; Bryson 1936; Emmons 1856;
Engineering and Mining Journal 1887; Fitzpatrick 1983; Kerr and Hanna 1893; Luttrell 1978; Nitze and Hanna 1896;
Nitze and Wilkens 1897; Pardee and Park 1948; Pratt 1907. tmultiple sources indicate that the Parker, Biles, Flint
Springs, and Johnny Parker were on adjoining (Biles) or nearby (Flint Springs, Johnny Parker) properties and not
"near Salisbury" as indicated by some later sources. The Biles and Flint Springs mines are included on a ca. 1880s
plat map and the Biles mining tract and others are referenced in an 1887 deed and are clearly adjacent to the Parker
family properties (see Chapter 6).
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
North Carolina has been the subject of archaeological research for over a century, and most trends in the
history of North American archaeology are reflected in the region. Although the earliest investigations
occurred in the mountains west of the Piedmont (see Dickens 1976; Thomas 1891, 1894; Ward and Davis
1999), similar amateur -investigators such as the Reverend Douglas Rights and others began to document
their findings in the Piedmont. The history of archaeological inquiry dates back to the late nineteenth
century, when local physician F.J. Kron reported on artifacts he had collected along the Yadkin River near
its confluence with the Uwharrie (Kron 1875). This pattern of avocational research continued through the
early twentieth century with the recordation of numerous archaeological sites by Herbert Doerschuk and
others (e.g., Howell and Dearborn 1953; Rights 1947). Herbert M. Doerschuk, superintendent of the
Electrical Department for Alcoa Works, was an avid collector who discovered many of the sites that were
later formally investigated in the area.
Interest in the archaeology of the North Carolina Piedmont was stimulated in 1933 by the organization of
the Archaeological Society of North Carolina by the Reverend Douglas Rights, and in 1936 a young student
named Joffre Coe began the first systematic archaeological study at what is thought to be the Keyauwee
village in Randolph County (Coe 1937; Raleigh News & Observer, 16 August, 1936). This was followed
by WPA-funded excavations at the Frutchey (Town Creek) Mound in Montgomery County, several grant -
funded projects designed to investigate the origins of the Siouan speaking societies encountered by
eighteenth century European explorers, and excavations at several stratified sites along the lower
Yadkin/Pee Dee River (Ward and Davis 1999:13-14, 16) where the basic chronological outline of the
Archaic period was documented. These investigations laid the foundation on which all subsequent research
in the North Carolina Piedmont is based.
Much of the earliest systematic and well -recorded excavations in North Carolina occurred in Stanly County
(e.g., Hardaway [31 ST4], Lowders Ferry [31 ST7]) and in neighboring Montgomery County (e.g., Town
Creek [31MG2/3] and Doerschuk [31MG22]) (Coe 1964, 1995, and others) between 1936 and 1980. These
excavations provided the information on which the cultural sequence of the Piedmont is based, as well as a
wealth of other information. Excavations at the Lowders Ferry site, which began in 1948, were the first to
systematically establish the early cultural chronology in North Carolina.
The Doerschuk site was discovered in 1928 by Herbert Doerschuk; in 1948 Joffre Coe and Paul Strieff
(who were investigating the Lowders Ferry site on the opposite side of the river) excavated a single test pit
at the site. Coe expanded the initial excavation the following year (Coe 1964; Ward and Davis 1999:59).
The Doerschuk site excavations extended the Middle to Late Archaic sequence first encountered at Lowders
Ferry and were instrumental in determining the Archaic period chronology of North Carolina and of much
of the eastern United States (Ward and Davis 1999:49, 51, 59).
26

Beginning in the 1970s, the establishment of Federal cultural resources legislation and management
procedures resulted in an increasing number of archaeological projects in North Carolina. In Stanly and
surrounding counties, most of these are surveys related to the Uwharrie National Forest, transportation
improvements, or other activities.
27

This page intentionally left blank.
W.

4. RESEARCH GOALS AND METHODS
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The goal of the survey was to systematically gather data on any archaeological resources present and
evaluate the portion of the Parker Gold Mine within the Project area through application of the NRHP
Criteria for Evaluation (36CFR 60.4).
RESEARCH METHODS
Background Research
Background literature review was conducted to gather information on any known cultural resources on and
adjacent to the Project area and included examination of the following materials:
• Architectural surveys and National Register and historic structure study list files at the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Office in Raleigh;
• Archaeological site files, reports, and data on file at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology in
Raleigh; and
• Historical maps and other data available online, in the UNC-Chapel Hill North Carolina Collection, the North
Carolina State Archives, and in TRC's collection.
Field Methods
The archaeological survey complied with all pertinent state and federal regulations, including the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology's (OSA) Archaeological Investigation Standards and Guidelines
(OSA 2017). The field surveys and evaluation studies were conducted by a team of three, consisting of the
Field Director and two Archaeological Technicians.
The fieldwork included a systematic pedestrian walkover of the entire Project area and systematic
subsurface shovel testing at 30-m intervals across all parts of the Project area except for visible wetland
areas, areas of greater than 10% slope, or areas of visible and severe disturbance; supplemental shovel tests
were also excavated at 15-m intervals to delineate finds.
Each shovel test measured 30 to 35 cm in diameter and was excavated to sterile subsoil. All removed soil
(excluding obvious fill) was screened through'/4-inch mesh for uniform artifact recovery. Each shovel test
was described in terms of depth, soil texture, Munsell soil color, and artifact recovery. Shovel test locations
were recorded using a hand-held Trimble Geo7X Global Positioning System (GPS) in NAD 83 coordinates
and drawn on the Project map.
After completion of the shovel testing, a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire Project area was
conducted as part of the evaluation of the Parker Mine. This consisted of close interval surface inspection
(including all sloped areas) and mapping of identifiable surface features with a Trimble GeoExplorer 7H
receiver with sub -meter accuracy for creation of GIS shape files. Although nearly all of the Project area is
wooded, the understory is surprisingly clear, and affords good visibility of anything large enough to be
exposed above the leaf litter.
Notes were made on the survey methods and environmental conditions and field maps were drawn for each
site. Representative photographs of the project area were taken with a digital camera to document the
general topography, vegetation, and disturbance.
29

LABORATORY METHODS
Artifact Analysis
All artifacts were returned to the TRC Asheville facility for processing. Upon arrival in the laboratory, all
artifact and sample bags were checked against provenience data from field records prior to processing.
Artifacts were washed and air-dried, then sorted for analysis. The following laboratory methods were
employed.
Ceramic Artifact Analysis. No Native American sherds were recovered during the project.
Lithic Artifact Anal. Lithic artifacts were first sorted into debitage and flaked tool. No non -flaked stone
artifacts were encountered. The following categories were utilized in the analysis.
Projectile Point. Projectile points (points) are defined as bifaces that possess hafting attributes and taper to
a point at the distal end. Many of these forms are temporally sensitive and can provide chronological
information. Those recovered during this project were analyzed according to typologies in use in the
Piedmont region of North Carolina.
Biface/Biface Fragment. This category includes complete and fragmentary specimens of bifacially worked
artifacts that do not exhibit fully developed hafting elements. These are grouped by reduction stage category
(i.e., early, middle, and late), based on relative thickness and degree of reduction, but these categories are
somewhat arbitrary and represent a variety of manufacturing trajectories in mixed contexts.
Debitage. Debitage fragments are the byproduct of lithic tool manufacture. Counts, weight, raw material,
and size category were recorded for debitage, and presence or absence of cortex was noted. The debitage
was separated into three categories —complete flake, broken flake, and flake fragment.
Raw Material Identification. Raw materials for chipped stone artifacts have been identified based on
macroscopic characteristics. Categories used include rhyolite, unidentified metavolcanic, and quartz.
Euro-American Artifacts. Euro-American artifacts were initially divided into principal categories based on
composition (i.e., ceramic, glass, metal, etc.) and then classified according to published artifact descriptions.
Modern artifacts were not collected.
Curation
All artifacts, field notes, photographs, and other project materials are temporarily stored at the TRC facility
in Asheville, North Carolina. At the conclusion of the project, the materials will either be returned to the
landowner or packaged for curation according to the Office of State Archaeology Research Center's
(OSARC's) guidelines and curated at the OSARC facility in Raleigh.
NRHP ELIGIBILITY EVALUATIONS
The potential NRHP Eligibility of the project resources was considered in light of the NRHP Eligibility
Criteria as outlined in 36 CFR 60.4 (USDOI 1991). The NRHP Eligibility Criteria state:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture
is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.
30

(a). That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of our history; or
(b). That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c). That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d). That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Several factors were considered in assessing site significance and research potential under Criterion D,
including artifact variety and quantity, site clarity and integrity, and environmental context (Glassow
1977).
31

This page intentionally left blank.
32

5. RESULTS
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED RESOURCES
Archaeological Sites
Review of files and records at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) indicated that there have been no
systematic surveys and there are no previously recorded archaeological sites within or adjacent to the
Project. There are three previously recorded archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of the Project
(Table 5.1). One of these is the "Hinson -Parker cemetery," which very likely refers to the Parker cemetery
recorded during the Project survey (see below). There is no site form or associated mapped location on file
with the OSA, however. There are no individuals with the surname Hinson at either of the two Parker
cemeteries [Parker cemetery, and African American Parker cemetery] recorded in 1940 (WPA 1940); there
is a Hinson Cemetery recorded in 1939, but that cemetery is located in Oakboro (WPA 1940). Site 31 ST 13
was recorded by H.M. Doerschuk and refers to artifacts (e.g., projectile points, drilled stone, a mortar)
collected from the area around "the springhead of Rites Creek, east of New London near the Mooney peach
orchard on Badin-New London Road." Eight projectile points collected from 31 ST13 during the 1954 visit
are listed in the UNC RLA Specimen Catalog (accession #2101) (http://rla.unc.edu/Collections/RLA_
Specimen Catalog), but do not appear to have been further examined or described. Finally, site 31ST136
was recorded during a survey for sewer line construction (Ayers 1989); that site is represented by a
nondiagnostic metavolcanic debitage scatter located on Henderson Road along Town Creek, south of the
Project area.
Table 5.1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Proiect.
Site Description NRHP Status Reference
31 ST--- Hinson -Parker Cemetery Unassessed
.... .... ........ ...........
31ST13 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Unassessed H M Doerschuk 1954
....... ..... ..... ..... .... .......
31ST136 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not Eligible Ayers 1989
Historic Properties and Structures
The Parker Gold Mine is a SO -status property (ST0245) recorded in 1989-1991, based on its nineteenth
century mapped location; it has not been previously evaluated for NRHP eligibility and currently has no
Historic District (HD) status. There are no historic structures recorded within or immediately adjacent to
the Project. The nearest recorded structures are all situated in New London and are east of NC 52 and the
Project. There is no potential for any archaeological remains associated with those structures within the
Project area. Aside from numerous hunting stands, the two structures present on or immediately adjacent
to the tract are clearly modern and include a large shed with aluminum siding and an abandoned
construction trailer.
Cemeteries
One cemetery (the Parker Cemetery) is located immediately adjacent to the Project area. This is a small,
family cemetery associated with the Howell Parker Sr. family and is designated as ST0244 (Parker
Cemetery) in the HPO database. This abandoned cemetery was recorded during the Project as
archaeological site 31 ST290 and is discussed in Chapter 7. The location of a purported "Hinson -Parker"
cemetery (see above) is unknown; no cemeteries under that name were recorded during the WPA surveys,
and it is quite possible that the names are conflated with the Parker cemetery and it is in fact the same
cemetery recorded as 31 ST290 (Chapter 7, this report).
33

There are no cemeteries depicted within the Project area on historic maps (see below) or listed in available
databases (e.g., http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/stanly/stanlycemetery.html
https://www. findagrave. com/cemetery-browse/USA/North-Carolina/Stanly-County?id=county_ 1734;
https:Hcemeterycensus.com/nc/stan/index.htm). No evidence of unrecorded cemeteries was found within
or immediately adjacent to the Project area by the field survey.
An isolated cut granite slab was encountered east of the central stream near a former road trace; its position
was recorded with a GPS unit, but no archaeological site number was assigned. The slab resembles a
monument or other important marker; it is positioned vertically and appears to be set into the ground at the
location (Figure 5.1). It bears no inscription and is very dissimilar in appearance to the markers in the Parker
Cemetery, as it is a different material, is much thicker, and appears to be largely unweathered. There is no
evidence that this stone slab represents a cemetery location. No other similar or dissimilar stones are present
in the immediate area, and there are no surrounding depressions or groundcover vegetation typically
associated with cemeteries.
Figure 5.1. Granite slab, facing southwest.
HISTORY AND MAP DEPICTIONS OF THE PROJECT AREA
A series of historic maps dating from the twentieth century were consulted to identify potential former
structure locations within or adjacent to the Project area. (No eighteenth century or earlier nineteenth
century maps show any detail of the Project area.) The earliest detailed map of the Project area is a 1904
county map produced by C.M. Miller (Figure 5.2) (Miller 1904). That map depicts the Salisbury -Norwood
Railroad tracks, an improved road roughly corresponding to the present NC 52 route, and the location of
the Parker Mine (labeled simply as "Mine"). The 1916 soils map shows similar detail but does not show
any mines in the county (Figure 5.3) (Jurney 1916). Neither the 1904 nor 1916 maps shows any structures
within the Project area.
34

C' H.
C:!
C' 8.1.9f,
Cot 'r
D. C 0
&ri A�yieI
r• 0'. h;A. ItS
I's A.a
A. C A/ 'E' L.
yV
E W-,z
C. C. T ,TeeV&S
M. L. /017i
T. I- Zx I
W 4. -- C 0 7V"
Otr
7r'RrsglnoLar .1. A vs 17
•
"78
MIF Ir
0 X&
C. A/V + V., P,
j. 0& V W M. do r r,
AV 5 7'1
Ii, V OU1V-r'
e L
A �0. 'S ORA
U. C. e
te A I- F- Pr I
A4
C" P�Gr R, 7- C
9A A le-.-
tP�r+1 pe.,
Figure 5.2. The Project vicinity as shown on the 1904 county map (Miller 1904).
As
G I
N
o'n it IL r I
N
A
G
Figure 5.3. The Project vicinity as shown on the 1916 Stanly County soils map (Jurney 1916).
35

The earliest 7.5-minute series USGS quadrangle map (USGS 1980) is based on a 1977 aerial photograph
(and 1978 field reconnaissance) and shows no structures within or immediately adjacent to the Project area
(Figure 5.4). Aerial photographs in 1956 (https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer) and 1977 (USGS 1977)
show the Project area as largely wooded, with some partially cleared areas. The lake located within the
Project area appears to post-date 1983; it is not depicted on the 1980/1983 USGS topographic map, but is
shown on a 1998 aerial photograph surrounded by a broad denuded area; the rest of the Project area appears
much as it does at present (https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer).
er
Bch 1
LondonJN
`
t i C V
26
4,
J�
A-1
c
J '
J f
xbst /
Figure 5.4. The project vicinity as shown on the 1980 USGS topographic quadrangle.
FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
The archaeological survey included excavation of a total of 1,003 shovel tests, including tests excavated at
30-m intervals along survey transects as well as 15-m interval site delineation tests. The shovel test transects
were oriented with the Project area boundary and/or the landforms.
The survey identified 17 archaeological sites (31 ST273-31 ST289), including the Parker Gold Mine (site
31 ST289, recorded in NC HPO files as ST0245), and one site situated immediately adjacent to the Project
area (site 31 ST290, the Parker cemetery, recorded in NC HPO files as ST0244) (Table 5.2; Figure 5.5; see
Figure 1.2). Two of the resources represented within the Project area (31 ST277 and 31 ST289) were not
totally defined by the survey, and one of these 31 ST289 extends outside of the Project area; the remaining
15 sites appear to be totally delineated within the Project area. Site 31 ST290, the Parker cemetery, is situated
immediately outside of the Project area and will not be affected by construction or other activities.
36

Q
o •;
Y <
N U 7J N N U N N U 7J N U 7J N N U ri:y` '1
I
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y UQ 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z W�
O O O O O O O O O O O O (= (= O O N
z
z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z
o -o •-+ N r- � N N� N o� N�
z
k4*) 110ocal�IxI'D kr)r-o—�<01,00C�10'IT
�
cv —Nz
1
N j
,�.a• U i
I
� O
0 0 o U U o U U o o U o o U
A a s a s � 4 a
Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yl Yll Yl �I
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U I
�Y.I �Y.I Y YL..�I Y YL..�I �Yy Y
i-I �I �I rl rl rl rl rl �I �i rl �I �i rl r-I �I o I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 1
FY A A P FY Y1 in FY FY P P 9 A P FY A
M It kn \0 l� 00 C,� O - N M 't kn \0 l� 00 C,� C
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H F
V) V) U� coo V1 VD coo V1 V1 U� cn V) VI cn V) V) cn G
.-ti .--1 .--I .--I .-ti .--1 .--1 .-ti .--1 .--I .--1 .--1 .--I .--I .-ti .--1 .--I �
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r
37

Figure 5.5. New London Mine Project shovel tests and archaeological sites.
IR

Site numbers were not assigned to early to mid -twentieth century surface artifacts (e.g., bottle and canning
jars and fragments, brick fragments, undecorated whiteware, occasional enamelware) or modern artifacts
encountered at multiple locations within the Project area. These artifacts were not closely associated with
mining features (in fact, all were situated west of the western access road were no such features were
encountered) or with evidence of an associated domestic occupation. These appear to be attributable to
discard emanating from surrounding properties, such as those artifacts found associated with a somewhat
linear rock pile near the edge of an agricultural field (Figure 5.6). Similarly, no site number was assigned
to an isolated, upright slab of cut granite encountered east of the central stream near a former road trace,
which has been discussed above (see Figure 5.1). The slab may be some type of marker but does not appear
to represent a cemetery location.
i
y.
Figure 5.6. Refuse and rock pile near western Project area edge, facing west.
31ST273
Component(s):
Precontact: Early Woodland?
Site Dimensions:
20 in N-S x 10 m E-W
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570263 N3921701
Landform:
Ridge toe
Elevation:
ca. 652 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST273 is a small precontact period site located on a low, narrow toe ridge that converges
between two stream branches, much of which is marked by a graded road trace (Figures 5.7 and 5.8; see
Figure 5.5). The site boundaries are defined by the extent of the landform between the stream channels and
to the west by negative shovel tests.
39

Figure 5.7. Map of 31 ST273.
.E

Figure 5.8. Site 31 ST273, facing north.
The soils at 31 ST273 are mapped as Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB), a well -drained, residual
soil found on gently sloping to steep uplands (USDA NRCS 2020). Shovel tests encountered truncated and
severely eroded soils; ST 18-8 encountered an 18 cm thick A horizon of dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) silt
loam (which appeared to represent historic colluvium), which conformably overlay a dark reddish brown
(2.5YR 3/4) clay loam B horizon (Figure 5.9). Other tests encountered a thin (ca. 5 cm thick) organic layer
(Oi horizon) overlying similar subsoil or an associated gravelly substratum.
Shovel Tests. One of five shovel tests excavated on the toe ridge (including all transect and delineation tests
situated within 30 m) produced one artifact from the A horizon. One additional artifact was collected from
an exposed surface in the road trace.
Artifacts. Shovel tests and surface inspection at 31 ST273 generated two lithic artifacts. These include the
distal portion of a stemmed projectile point made of aphyric rhyolite (Figure 5.10a) and a biface fragment
made of a metavolcanic material resembling tuff. The projectile point is a small stemmed variety that
resembles the Randolph stemmed type as defined in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe 1964) or the Thelma
stemmed projectile point type as defined in the lower Roanoke Valley (South 1959, 2005). Although it has
no secure provenience at 31 ST273, the style suggests terminal Late Archaic to Early Woodland
manufacture (cf. Claggett 1982:248; South 2005:64; Spielmann 1976; Woodall et al. 1977:56).
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST273 is represented by two precontact period artifacts on a
severely eroded and partly graded, sloped toe ridge toe adjacent to a stream. The artifacts suggest very
ephemeral use of the landform. Site 31 ST273 is unlikely to provide any significant or new information
concerning precontact occupations in the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP
criteria.
41

Figure 5.9. Shovel Test 18-8 at 31 ST273.
42

Figure 5.10. Selected lithic artifacts from 31 ST273, 31 ST279, 31 ST281, and 31 ST285. a: metavolcanic
biface fragment, 31 ST273, ST 18-8; b: rhyolite stemmed PPK, cf. Randolph stemmed, 31 ST273, surface; c: rhyolite
unidentified PPK, 31 ST279, ST 79-4; d: quartz unidentified PPK, 31 ST281, surface; e: rhyolite unidentified
stemmed PPK, 31 ST285, surface
43

31ST274
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
10 m E-W X 10 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570048 N3921609
Landform:
Ridgetop
Elevation:
ca. 712 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST274 is represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic artifact encountered on a graded
road just off a ridge crest (Figures 5.11 and 5.12; see Figure 5.5). The surrounding area is substantially
disturbed (by a combination of grading and mining -related activities) and the roadbed itself has been deeply
scoured into the B horizon. The site is bounded by negative shovel tests. The artifact has likely been
redeposited from the nearby ridge crest, which has been graded to a gravelly substratum.
The soils at 31 ST274 are mapped as Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB), a well -drained, residual
soil found on gently sloping to steep uplands (USDA NRCS 2020). All of the delineation shovel tests
encountered truncated or disturbed sequences; for example, ST FS2-5 encountered a 16 cm thick Oi horizon
underlain by the leached A horizon of light brownish yellow (IOYR 6/4) compact silt loam, which overlay
strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) compact clay loam (e.g., Figure 5.13). Other tests encountered impenetrable
gravels near the base of the A horizon.
Shovel Tests. In addition to five nearby transect shovel tests, six additional shovel tests were excavated at
15-m intervals on either side of the road (just beyond the spoil piles associated with the grading of the road)
to bracket the area where the artifact was found. None of these produced artifacts, and additional surface
inspection within the road did not encounter any additional artifacts.
Artifacts. The representative artifact is a large piece of non -cortical rhyolite debitage.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST274 is a nondiagnostic lithic site on an elevated upland
landform and is represented by a single surface artifact. This site is unlikely to provide any significant or
new information concerning precontact occupations in the area and is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP under Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the
other NRHP criteria.
44

Figure 5.11. Map of 31 ST274.
45

Figure 5.12. Site 31 ST274, facing north.
Figure 5.13. Shovel Test 5-2 at 31 ST274.
^ e
� ,i`•�. �: f a� +spa 4
46

31ST275
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
15 in E-W X 15 in N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570173 N3921335
Landform:
Ridge toe
Elevation:
ca. 638 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST275 is represented by a precontact period nondiagnostic lithic artifact found on a
broad ridge toe (Figures 5.14 and 5.15; see Figure 5.5). The site is defined by negative shovel tests.
The soils at 31 ST275 are mapped as Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a 20 cm thick A horizon of very pale brown (1OYR 7/3) sandy loam with gravels
overlying similar clay loam containing decayed rock (Figure 5.16).
Shovel Tests. Eight shovel tests were excavated at 15-m intervals across the area (including all transect and
delineation tests situated within 30 m); one of these produced a precontact period lithic artifact from the A
horizon.
Artifacts. The assemblage consists of an unmodified rhyolite flake.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST275 is the location of a nondiagnostic lithic artifact find. Site
31 ST275 is unlikely to provide any significant or new information concerning precontact occupations in
the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the
characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.
47

Figure 5.14. Map of 31 ST275 and 31 ST276.

m
Figure
VNM
0
30
"0'lr?tom^.r
�7—
I

31ST276
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
15 in E-W X 10 in N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570225 N3921274
Landform:
Ridge toe
Elevation:
ca. 620 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST276 is represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic artifact and is situated near the
base of a ridge spur overlooking a Town Creek tributary branch (Figure 5.17; see Figures 5.5 and 5.14).
The artifact was found on a road trace surface.
The soils at 31 ST276 are mapped as Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a 5-29 cm thick A horizon of light brown (7.5YR 6/4) sandy loam overlying
strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) clay loam that contained decayed rock resembling hematite (e.g., Figure 5.18).
Shovel Tests. Nine shovel tests were excavated across the area (including all transect and delineation tests
situated within 30 m) (see Figure 5.14). None of these generated artifacts.
Artifacts. One piece of rhyolite debitage was collected from the surface.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST276 is represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic artifact from
the surface. This site is unlikely to provide any significant or new information concerning precontact
occupations in the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the site also
appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.
Figure 5.17. Site 31 ST276, facing northeast.
50

Figure 5.18. Shovel Test N300 E285 at 31 ST276.
31ST277
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
15 in E-W X 15 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570242 N3921976
Landform:
Toe Slope
Elevation:
ca. 716 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Tarrus channery silty clay loam, 2-8% slopes (TcB2)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
*Site measurements based on artifact distribution within the Project area.
Description. Site 31 ST277 is a nondiagnostic lithic site situated on a broad, wooded toe ridge (Figures 5.19
and 5.20; see Figure 5.5). The site is defined by negative shovel tests to the west, east, and south, and by
the survey limits to the north. Although the northern limits of the site are undefined, cursory inspection
around the edge of the cultivated agricultural field (outside of the Project area) encountered no surface
artifacts.
The associated soils are mapped as Tarrus channery silty clay loam, 2-8% slopes (TcB2), a well -drained,
residual soil found in upland settings (USDA NRCS 2020). Shovel tests encountered a nine to 23 cm thick
A horizon of dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3) sandy loam overlying red (2.5YR 4/6) clay loam (Figure
5.21).
Shovel Tests. Eight shovel tests were excavated across the area (including all transect and delineation tests
situated within 30 m); one of these produced a precontact period lithic artifact from the A horizon.
Artifacts. The representative artifact is a piece of unmodified rhyolite debitage.
51

Figure 5.19. Map of 31 ST277.
52

Figure 5.20. Site 31 ST277, facing east.
_ .,_ a
'C
1 _
06
•��I _Ii• r: .wi " / +V� i' !') 1c�tr:• rti _ w - r G Y �i s
Figure 5.21. Shovel Test N300 E315 at 31 ST277.
53

Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST277 is a nondiagnostic lithic site and is represented by a single
artifact from the A horizon. Site 31 ST277 is unlikely to provide any significant or new information
concerning precontact occupations in the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP
criteria.
31ST278
Component(s): Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 30 m E-W X 15 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83): E570019 N3921747
Landform: Ridge top
Elevation: ca. 708 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s): Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes, extremely bouldery (GmC)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST278 is a low -density precontact period site situated on the level portion of a broad
Piedmont ridge (Figures 5.22 and 5.23; see Figure 5.5). The site is bounded by negative shovel tests.
The soils at 31 ST278 are mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GmC), a well -drained, residual
soil type found on gently sloping to moderately steep Piedmont uplands (USDA NRCS 2020). Shovel tests
encountered a 9-24 cm thick A horizon of dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/3) sandy loam that overlay dark
red (2.5YR 3/6) clay loam (Figure 5.24).
Shovel Tests. Two lithic artifacts were recovered from two of the 16 shovel tests excavated across the area
(including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 m). The artifacts were found in the A horizon.
Artifacts. The assemblage is limited to two pieces of unmodified rhyolite debitage.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST278 is a nondiagnostic precontact lithic site situated on a broad
ridge. It is characterized by low artifact density and lacks evidence of substantial artifact concentrations or
intact artifact deposits. Site 31 ST278 appears to have little potential to provide substantial information on
the prehistory of the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; it also appears
to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.
54

Figure 5.22. Map of 31 ST278.
55

Figure 5.23. Site 31 ST278, facing east.
Figure 5.24. Shovel Test 72-15 at 31ST278.
56

31ST279
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
15 m E-W X 15 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E569878 N3921633
Landform:
Ridge toe
Elevation:
ca. 684 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes, extremely bouldery (GmC)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31ST279 is represented by a fragmentary projectile point found on the eastern edge of a
ridge toe (Figures 5.25 and 5.26; see Figure 5.5). The site is defined by negative shovel tests to the west
and south and by slope to the north and east.
The soils at 31 ST279 are mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GmC) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a ca. 10 to 15 cm thick A horizon of yellowish brown (lOYR 5/8) sandy loam
overlying strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) clay loam (Figure 5.27).
Shovel Tests. Five shovel tests were excavated across the portion of the landform that is not steeply sloped
(including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 m); one of these produced a precontact period
lithic artifact from the A horizon.
Artifacts. The single artifact is a fragmentary projectile point (see Figure 5.11c). The artifact is made of
rhyolite and most likely represents a stemmed projectile point but is too fragmentary to be considered
diagnostic of any particular precontact period.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST279 is a nondiagnostic lithic site on an upland landform and is
represented by a single fragmentary and nondiagnostic projectile point fragment from the A horizon. This
site is unlikely to provide any significant or new information concerning precontact occupations in the area
and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the
characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.
57

Figure 5.25. Map of 31 ST279.
W.

Figure 5.26. Site 31 ST279, facing east.
Figure 5.27. Shovel Test 79-4 at 31ST279.
59

31ST280
Component(s): Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 15 m E-W X 15 in N-S
UTMs (NAD 83): E569900 N3921837
Landform: Toe slope
Elevation: ca. 696 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s): Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes, extremely bouldery (GmC)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST280 is represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic artifact that was discovered on a
ridge toe slope (Figures 5.28 and 5.29; see Figure 5.5). The site is defined by negative shovel tests to the
east and west and by slope to the north and south.
The soils at 31 ST280 are mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GmC) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a 15-20 cm thick A horizon of yellowish brown (1 OYR 5/8) sandy loam overlying
strong brown (7.5YR 5/8) clay loam (Figure 5.30).
Shovel Tests. Seven shovel tests were excavated across the portion of the landform that is not steeply sloped
(including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 m); one of these produced a lithic artifact
from the A horizon.
Artifacts. The associated artifact is a piece of unmodified rhyolite debitage.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST280 is represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic from the A
horizon and is unlikely to provide any significant or new information concerning precontact occupations in
the area. It is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the
characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.

Figure 5.28. Map of 31 ST280.
61

Figure 5.29. Site 31 ST280, facing east.
�Az
i
IJ
. X,4-,
r, ..
Vw
''. r
l .'.f�,r {�: f MX't IZ�, ,S" � • r. i },gyp- .��•
Figure 5.30. Shovel Test 87-3 at 31ST280.
62

31ST281
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
20 m E-W X 30 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E569943 N3921348
Landform:
Ridge top
Elevation:
ca. 656 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST281 is a low -density precontact period site situated on a ridge top adjacent to a graded
access road (Figures 5.31 and 5.32; see Figure 5.5). The site is bounded to the south, north, and west by
negative shovel tests, and to the east by a cleared area that has been graded to the gravelly Bt horizon.
The soils at 31 ST281 are mapped as Tarrus channery silt loam, 2-8% slopes (TbB) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a 5-29 cm thick leached A horizon of brown (7.5YR 5/4) loamy sand that overlay
yellowish red (5YR 5/6) sandy clay loam or impenetrable decayed rock and gravels (Figure 5.33).
Shovel Tests. Two lithic artifacts were recovered from two of the 20 shovel tests excavated across the area
(including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 m); the two tests each produced one artifact
from the leached A horizon. In addition to those artifacts, a quartz biface fragment was recovered from the
surface of a grading spoil pile and one piece of rhyolite debitage was collected from the access road. Surface
inspection of the road and other exposed areas did not encounter any additional artifacts.
Artifacts. The assemblage is limited to one quartz late -stage biface medial fragment (see Figure 5.11 d) and
three pieces of unmodified rhyolite debitage.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST281 is a nondiagnostic precontact lithic site situated on the
intact and wooded portion of a ridge crest. The site may have once extended east but that part of the
landform has been graded; inspection of the road east of the site area encountered a single piece of rhyolite
debitage. Like other sites encountered during the Project, 31ST281 is characterized by extremely low
artifact density and lacks evidence of substantial artifact concentrations or intact artifact deposits. Site
31 ST281 appears to have little potential to provide substantial information about the prehistory of the area
and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; it also appears to lack the characteristics
necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.
63

Figure 5.31. Map of 31 ST281.
64

k.
A 4
Iola
ss Ii
" t #, -
NK

31ST282
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
15 m E-W X 30 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570505 N3921982
Landform:
Ridge toe
Elevation:
ca. 700 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Udorthents, loamy (Ud)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST282 is a small, low -density precontact period site situated on the broad, level base of
a ridge toe east of a graded road (Figures 5.34 and 5.35; see Figure 5.5). The site is bounded to the east,
west, and south by negative shovel tests, and to the north by a broad mining scar (mine cut 9) attributable
to past hydraulic mining (see Chapter 6).
The soils at 31 ST282 are mapped as disturbed (Udorthents, Ud), which is consistent with the surface
conditions encountered at the site (USDA NRCS 2020), where the large hydraulic mining feature and
numerous small prospecting pits have generated displaced spoil over part of the site area. Shovel tests
encountered a 5-13 cm thick A horizon of dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) sandy loam that overlay yellowish
red (5YR 4/6) clay loam (Figure 5.36). The recorded soil cross -sections are generally consistent with those
described for the Georgeville series (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel Tests. Two lithic artifacts were recovered from two of the 11 shovel tests excavated across the area
(including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 m); the two tests each produced one artifact
from the A horizon.
Artifacts. The assemblage is limited to three pieces of unmodified debitage, including two of rhyolite and
one of an unidentified metavolcanic material.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST282 is a nondiagnostic precontact lithic site situated at the end
of a broad Piedmont ridge toe; given the configuration of the natural landform, the site may be artificially
truncated by past destructive mining activities. The site is characterized by low artifact density and is
substantially disturbed. Consequently, 31 ST282 appears to have little potential to provide substantial
information on the prehistory of the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D;
it also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.

Figure 5.34. Map of 31 ST282.
67

Figure 5.35. Site 31ST282, facing east.
Figure 5.36. Shovel Test 99-13 at 31ST282.
W.

31ST283
Component(s): Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 15 m E-W X 15 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83): E570528 N3921762
Landform: Ridge top
Elevation: ca. 720 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s): Lloyd gravelly loam, 2-8% slopes (LgB)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST283 is represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic artifact and is situated on an
eroded ridgetop adjacent to a graded road (Figures 5.37 and 5.38; see Figure 5.5). The site is defined by
negative shovel tests.
The soils at 31 ST283 are mapped as Lloyd gravelly loam, 2-8% slopes (LgB), a well -drained, residual soil
found on gently sloping Piedmont uplands (USDA NRCS 2020). Shovel tests encountered a 10 to 17 cm
thick A horizon of dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) sandy loam overlying dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4)
clay loam (Figure 5.39).
Shovel Tests. Nine shovel tests were excavated across the area (including all transect and delineation tests
situated within 30 m); only one of these produced a precontact period lithic artifact from the A horizon.
Artifacts. The assemblage consists of a single unmodified piece of rhyolite debitage.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST283 is a lithic site represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic
artifact from the A horizon. This site is unlikely to provide any significant or new information concerning
precontact occupations in the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the
site also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.

Figure 5.37. Map of 31 ST283.
70

kAl
-{, _
77
Ail-
r
of
ti. •.1 11. 3 � � �. sit
t
AMINi`
Mfgr-
9 v ��
E

31ST284
Component(s): Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 15 m E-W X 30 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83): E570367 N3921836
Landform: Toe Slope
Elevation: ca. 678 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s): Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes, extremely bouldery (GmC)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST284 is a small, low -density precontact period site situated on the level base of a ridge
toe slope adjacent to a stream tributary of Town Creek (Figures 5.40 and 5.41; see Figure 5.5). The site is
bounded to the west and north by the incised (and expanded and partially canalized) stream channel, and to
the south and east by negative shovel tests.
The soils at 31ST284 are mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GmC) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a 7-21 cm thick A horizon of very dark brown (7.5YR 2.5/3) gravelly sandy loam
that overlay dark red (5YR 3/4) clay loam with rock (Figure 5.42).
Shovel Tests. Two lithic artifacts were recovered from two of the nine shovel tests excavated across the area
(including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 m).
Artifacts. The assemblage is limited to two pieces of unmodified rhyolite debitage.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST284 is a nondiagnostic precontact lithic site situated at the base
of a toe slope overlooking a stream. It produced few artifacts and lacks evidence of intact artifact deposits.
Site 31 ST284 appears to have little potential to provide substantial information on the prehistory of the area
and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; it also appears to lack the characteristics
necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.
72

Figure 5.40. Map of 31 ST284.
73

Figure 5.41. Site 31 ST284, facing west.
Figure 5.42. Shovel Test 122-3 at 31 ST284.
74

31ST285
Component(s): Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 15 in E-W X 10 in N-S
UTMs (NAD 83): E570688 N3921735
Landform: Ridge toe
Elevation: ca. 704 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s): Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes, extremely bouldery (GmC)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST285 is represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic artifact collected from a road trace
on a descending ridge toe (Figures 5.43 and 5.44; see Figure 5.5). The site is defined by negative shovel
tests; the road trace afforded minimal surface exposure but was thoroughly inspected.
The soils at 31 ST285 are mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GmC) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Some of the tests encountered subsoil immediately beneath the modern humus. Other tests encountered a
leached A horizon up to 19 cm thick consisting of dark reddish brown (2.5YR 3/4) sandy loam capped by
a thin Oi horizon. The A horizon overlay red (2.5YR 3/6) clay loam (Figure 5.45).
Shovel Tests. Eight shovel tests were excavated across the area (including all transect and delineation tests
situated within 30 m) and effectively bracketed the surface artifact find; none of these generated artifacts.
The associated artifact was found on a graded road trace that descends to the stream to the east. Surface
visibility was very limited within the road, which along with associated displaced soils was examined for
any additional artifacts; none was encountered.
Artifacts. The representative artifact is a fragmentary rhyolite projectile point fragment that appears to have
been discarded during manufacture (see Figure 5.11 e); preliminary hafting preparation suggests that a small
stem was intended as a hafting element, but the artifact is not diagnostic of any particular component.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST285 is represented by one nondiagnostic lithic artifact found in
an eroded surface context. No subsurface artifacts were encountered. Site 31 ST285 is unlikely to provide
any significant or new information concerning precontact occupations in the area and is recommended not
eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the site also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for
eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.
75

Figure 5.43. Map of 31 ST285.
76

Figure 5.44. Site 31 ST285, facing west.
Figure 5.45. Shovel Test N100 E115 at 31ST285.
77

31ST286
Component(s): Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions: 15 m E-W X 15 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83): E570651 N3921622
Landform: Toe Slope
Elevation: ca. 698 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s): Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes, extremely bouldery (GmC)
Recommendation: Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31 ST286 is represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic artifact that was discovered on a
toe slope southeast of an upland Piedmont ridge top (Figures 5.46 and 5.47; see Figure 5.5). The site area
is defined by negative shovel tests and the absence of artifacts in the nearby graded road and associated
disturbances.
The soils at 31 ST286 are mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GmC) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a 12 to 24 cm thick leached A horizon of dark reddish brown (lOYR 4/6) or
grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) loamy sand overlying strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) or reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/8)
clay loam (e.g., Figure 5.48).
Shovel Tests. Nine shovel tests were excavated across the area (including all transect and delineation tests
situated within 30 m); one of these produced a precontact period lithic artifact from the A horizon.
Artifacts. Artifacts from this site are limited to one piece of unmodified rhyolite debitage.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST286 is a lithic site represented by a single nondiagnostic lithic
artifact. This site is unlikely to provide any significant or new information concerning precontact
occupations in the area and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; the site also
appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.
W.

Figure 5.46. Map of 31 ST286.
79

Figure 5.47. Site 31 ST286, facing west.
Figure 5.48. Shovel Test 112-10 at 31ST286.

31ST287
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
30 m E-W X 15 m N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570812 N3921504
Landform:
Ridge toe
Elevation:
ca. 664 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes, extremely bouldery (GmC)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31ST287 is a small, low -density precontact period site situated on a very broad Piedmont
ridge toe (Figures 5.49 and 5.50; see Figure 5.5). The site is bounded by negative shovel tests.
The soils at 31 ST287 are mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GmC) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a 5-20 cm thick leached A horizon of reddish brown (2.5YR 4/4) gravelly sandy
loam that overlay red (2.5YR 4/8) clay loam (Figure 5.51).
Shovel Tests. Two lithic artifacts were recovered from two of the 18 shovel tests excavated across the area
(including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 m); the two tests each produced one artifact
from the leached A horizon.
Artifacts. The assemblage is limited to two pieces of unmodified rhyolite debitage.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST287 is a nondiagnostic precontact lithic site situated on a ridge
toe that is not distinct in the low and dissected topography that is typical of the North Carolina Piedmont.
The site is characterized by extremely low artifact density and lacks evidence of intact artifact deposits.
Site 31 ST287 appears to have little potential to provide substantial information on the prehistory of the area
and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D; it also appears to lack the characteristics
necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP criteria.

Figure 5.49. Map of 31 ST287.

Figure 5.50. Site 31 ST287, facing south.
Figure 5.51. Shovel Test N185 E230 at 31 ST287.

31ST288
Component(s):
Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic
Site Dimensions:
60 m E-W X 30 in N-S
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570704 N3921456
Landform:
Ridge toe
Elevation:
ca. 664 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes, extremely bouldery (GmC)
Recommendation:
Not Eligible (all four NRHP criteria)
Description. Site 31ST288 is a low -density precontact period site situated on a broad ridge toe in the
southeastern section of the Project (Figures 5.52 and 5.53; see Figure 5.5). The site is bounded by negative
shovel tests.
The soils at 31ST288 are mapped as Georgeville silt loam, 4-15% slopes (GmC) (USDA NRCS 2020).
Shovel tests encountered a 6-44 cm thick A horizon of brown (10YR 5/3) compact, gravelly loamy sand
that overlay yellowish brown (1OYR 5/6 to 5/8) clay loam (Figure 5.54).
Shovel Tests. Four lithic artifacts were recovered from four of the 24 shovel tests excavated across the
wooded landform (including all transect and delineation tests situated within 30 m). The four tests each
produced one artifact from the A horizon.
Artifacts. The assemblage is limited to four pieces of unmodified debitage, all of rhyolite.
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST288 is a nondiagnostic precontact lithic site situated on a broad
Piedmont ridge toe. It generated few artifacts, which appear to result from an unknown (but apparently
limited) number of site visits during the prehistoric past and likely reflect general foraging -related activities
(including stone tool production) in upland settings. Site 31 ST288 appears to have scant potential to provide
substantial information on the prehistory of Stanly County and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP
under Criterion D; it also appears to lack the characteristics necessary for eligibility under the other NRHP
criteria.

■o
20
/ Jt
113-5
UL
6TMW�,,.
114-4
" 25
1p P�p
i
40iia
Meters
Figure 5.52. Map of 31 ST288.
Negative Shovel Test
• Positive Shovel Test
0 Unexcavated Shovel Test
x Surface Find
Sitel3oundary
Survey Area
—I%- -- Hydrograpliy
Contour Interval at4Foot

Figure 5.53. Site 31 ST288, facing north.
Figure 5.54. Shovel Test 112-4 at 31ST288.

This page intentionally left blank.

6. THE PARKER GOLD MINE SITE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
31ST289
Component(s):
Postcontact: Parker Gold Mine
Site Dimensions:
ca. 910 m E-W x 960 m N-S*
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570501 N3921836
Landform:
Ridge tops, Ridge toes, Toe slopes
Elevation:
ca. 570-710 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Multiple (see below)
Recommendation:
Eligible (Criterion A only)
*Site measurements based on surface feature and artifact distribution within the Project area; site extends outside of the Project
area.
Description. Site 31 ST289 is the Parker Gold Mine (HPO designation ST0245), an early nineteenth to late
twentieth century gold mine described in early nineteenth to twentieth century documents (e.g., Bryson
1936; Emmons 1856; Kerr and Hanna 1893; Knapp and Glass 1999; Nitze and Hanna 1896; Nitze and
Wilkens 1897; Pardee and Park 1948, and others) (see Figure 5.5). The site is located west of the town of
New London, south of Steakhouse Road (SR 1440) and west of the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks. The
site occupies two broad ridges and associated spurs and side slopes, and is dissected by two unnamed first -
order streams. Associated soils include Georgeville silt loam on 4-15% slopes (GmQ and 15-45% slopes,
extremely bouldery (GmF), Enon very cobbly loam, very stony (EmC, 4-15% slopes), Oakboro silt loam
(OaA, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded), Tarrus channery silt loam (TbB, 2-8% slopes, and TbD, 8-15%
slopes), Tarrus channery silty clay loam (TcB2, 2-8% slopes), and Udorthents, loamy (MRCS USDA 2020).
The site extends beyond the Project area, and the full extent of the mining property is not known. Mining
activity in the area was extensive, and the Parker Mine was later conjoined with other properties (which
appear to have been adjoining) under corporate ownership. Most of the intensive mining activity appears
to have occurred within the Project area, however.
Map Evidence. We are not aware of any maps detailing the layout of the mine (e.g., that show the locations
of active works or associated structures) at any time in its history, although the Parker Mine location is
shown on a few late nineteenth to early twentieth century maps. A ca. 1880s plat shows the location of the
Parker Gold Mining property in relation to the town of Bilesville (New London) and appears to be the only
readily accessible map made during that time period (Figure 6.1)
(https://Iib.digitalnc.org/record/5024?ln=en#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=303 %2C5 85%2C3033
%2C1627). The plat's source or exact date is not known to us (the hardcopy version is at the Stanly County
Museum in Albemarle and the map was examined only in digital form [https:Hlib.digitalnc.org/record]).
The map includes survey lines and acreage for properties within and adjoining Bilesville, including multiple
tracts totaling hundreds of acres assigned to "heirs of Howell Parker, Dec'd," and a ca. 215-acre tract listed
as the Howell Parker tract that appears to be bisected by a stream (the area west of the stream is labeled
"Parker Gold Mining Property"). The map shows adjoining or nearby tracts owned by R. Kirk, John Ivy,
Biles (including the Biles Gold Mine Tract), Henry Ivy, and the Flint Springs property owned by John Ivy.
The 1880s map indicates a main north -south road situated between New London (Bilesville) and the mining
properties, a forerunner of NC 52, with a few structures situated along the road. It is unclear if any of the
structures that are depicted are within or immediately adjacent to the Project area.
The mine is depicted on the 1904 county map, southwest of New London and east of the Salisbury -Norwood
Railroad (Miller 1904), where it is labeled simply as "Mine" (see Figure 5.2). The 1916 county soils map
(Jurney 1916) does not show any mines in the county (see Figure 5.3), and the mine's location is not
W.

indicated on any of the USGS topographic maps that were examined (e.g., USGS 1980) (see Figure 1.1).
Neither of the early twentieth century maps shows any structures within the Project area.
Figure 6.1. Ca. 1880-1889 map of the Parker Gold Mining property.
Documentary Evidence. Documentary evidence of the Parker Gold Mine (although it was later consolidated
with other mines under corporate control, it remained generally known as and was generally referred to as
the Parker Gold Mine or Mines) is considerable, and the following review is not exhaustive. The evidence
presented here is based on readily available journals and other publications (both hardcopy and online),
newspaper articles available online, and on limited deed research. Some references to the mine that were
encountered (especially from newspapers) were not cited as these were not considered very relevant in
terms of the mine's operation or its history sketched broadly. Other potential sources of information may
exist that were not examined in this study (e.g. Parker family records, plats other than the unsourced 1880s
plat map, Federal manufacturing schedules, etc.).

No records from the mine itself have been located; these may exist in varied forms, and fairly detailed
records would have been maintained during the late nineteenth century when the mine was beholden to
London investors. Despite the abundance of materials related to the Parker Mine, there is very little
description of daily life at the mine during its operation.
The earliest identified mention of what appears to be the Parker Mine is in an April 25, 1806 article in the
National Intelligencer and Washington Advisor (of Washington, D.C.):
The following is extracted from a letter written by Mr. Richard Brandon, of Concord, North
Carolina.
In the widow Parker's mine they have picked up a pint of gold within three or four weeks. I saw the
greatest part of it myself, one piece weighing nearly two ounces and a half clear of sand & dirt. Mrs.
Parker will mention no price at which her land may be purchased.
In a letter To the Members of the North Carolina Gold Mine Company and published in the Raleigh Minerva
later the same year (November 17, 1806), W. Thornton stated:
I afterwards visited the mines of Mrs. Parker and Mr. Harris. They lie in a hill that intersects the
company's land. Mr. Harris in ploughing across a small branch in his land, turned up a good sized
piece of gold. Having no regular weights he tried it in a pair of scales against a pewter plate and
spoon, which it outweighed. He then searched the run and was successful in finding gold. This little
branch runs immediately into the company's land, lying between it and Mrs. Parker's. But it was
dry, and I consequently made no search in it — nor in any of the branches on that side, though I heard
of gold being found in several. Mrs. Parker's mine was discovered, as I was informed, in a very
unexpected manner. Hearing of several discoveries, she said in a joking manner, to some company,
while drinking tea with her, "I wish gentlemen, any of you could find a gold mine in my land." —
On which Mr. Exberton [?] said, I will go madam, and search for you. He went, and in a little time
returned with a very good specimen. After this they found six hundred dollars worth, and this season
three hundred more, although they had not yet prepared any apparatus for even washing the gravel
and sand. They were making a small wooden machine while I was there.
The next, and most detailed, early account is provided in a March 31, 1825 article by Denison Olmsted
(Professor of Chemistry and Mineralogy at the University of North Carolina) titled On the Gold Mines of
North Carolina published in The National Gazette and Literary Register of Philadelphia:
Parker's Mine is situated on a small stream four miles south of the river Yadkin. As in the sintances
already mentioned [the Anson, and Reed's mines], excavations were numerous in the low grounds
adjacent to the stream; but, at the time of my visit, the earth for washing, (which was a snuff colour)
was transported from a ploughed field in the neighbourhood, that was elevated about fifty of sixty
feet above the stream. The earth at this place which contained the gold was of a deeper red than that
at either of the other mines. The gold found here is chiefly in flakes and grains. Occasionally
however pieces are met with which weigh 100 pwts. And upwards; and very recently a mass has
been discovered that weighed four pounds and eleven ounces. This is said to have been found at the
depth of ten feet, which is a lower level than any I had heard of before...
The greatest part of the gold collected at these mines is bought up by the country merchants at 90 or
91 cents a pennyweight. They carry it to the market towns, as Fayetteville, Cheraw, Charleston, and
New York. Much of this is bought up by jewelers; some remains in the banks, and a considerable
quantity has been received at the mint of the United States [in Philadelphia].
Another 1825 article, this one in The Raleigh Register, links John Parker, a son of Howell Parker Sr. (see
below), with the mine.
a

State of North -Carolina
Montgomery County, April 29, 1825
Taken up this day, by John Parker, living at the Gold Mine, known by the name of Parker's Gold
Mine, in said county, one sorrel Gelding with a blaze face and flax colored mane with a small white
spot on his near thigh and one on his right shoulder, judged to be fifteen years old, five feet high,
valued to be worth twenty-five dollars.
The mine is mentioned in an 1828 edition of the Western Carolinian, a Salisbury -based newspaper that was
published from 1820 to 1844 (https://www.ncpedia.org/western-carolinian) (note that Stanly County was
part of Montgomery County until 1841).
A correspondent informs us, that a negro belonging to Mr. George Hearne, found at Parker's mine,
in Montgomery, on the 15"' instant, a lump of Gold, which, when cleaned, weighed 185
pennyweights. With one exception, this is the largest piece of gold ever found at this mine. It has
encouraged the workers to go on, with renewed energy, in their labors of extracting mineral wealth
from a soil that hitherto yielded but a beggarly return, in its vegetable productions, for the labor
bestowed upon it (Western Carolinian, August 26, 1828).
Other than its date, this 1828 reference is interesting, first, as it indicates the use of enslaved labor in some
capacity (and to be sure, the use of enslaved persons in mining was common in North Carolina [Botwick
2012:10; Green 1937:12, 15; Knapp and Glass 1999:20-211 and would certainly not attract the attention of
contemporary newspaper writers). The second interesting feature is the reference to the poor agricultural
productivity of the Parker lands (one can imagine the lure of potential profits from mining gold after the
soils were exhausted from farming). The short article also indicates that mining had been conducted for
some time before 1828. In fact, Knapp and Glass indicate that mining began on the Parker property about
1805 (Knapp and Glass 1999:10), possibly based on the newspaper accounts cited above. In the first decades
of the nineteenth century, gold mining developed as a seasonal business conducted by amateur miner -
farmers during agricultural "downtime," but the industry had already attracted some national attention
during this time (Knapp and Glass 1999:10-11).
The Carolina Watchman, another Salisbury -based newspaper, published from 1832 to 1937, references a
visit to the Parker Mine in an 1838 article.
Montgomery is a green stone and slate formation (with here and there a vein of quartz) and in that
formation water is generally scarce. Especially in the summer season. Not withstanding this
drawback, much gold has been found in this county, and several of the richest deposits known in
the United States are found here. Parkers' mine is one of them. I had often heard of this mine, but
never visited it until the other day. It was one of the first mines discovered in North Carolina, save
that of Reed's in Cabarrus county, and has been worked constantly for about thirty-five years with
more or less success.
The gold is said to be the finest in the state. The pieces in this mine vary, from the size of pinheads
to lumps, weighing three, four, or even five pounds. From the best estimate that can be made, it is
supposed that upwards of 200,000 dollars' worth of gold has been taken from this mine.
It has always been worked as a deposit mine, but within the last few months, one of the veins, which,
no doubt, once supplied these extensive deposits with gold, has been penetrated and found, so far as
tested, to be very rich. Good workmen have averaged at this mine, and that too with a small hand
rocker, 20 dwts. (pennyweights) per day to the hand for the whole season; and 5 to 10 dwts. per hand
has been very common working at times. When I was on the ground, I saw two or three persons still
washing, and making good wages out of grit several times culled. No doubt remains in my mind,
but that all the gold here found, came from veins located in the hill near the head of the two streams
where washing has been done.
91

These veins will be, in time, no doubt, be developed and profitably worked. Some very rich ore and
beautiful specimens of gold in quartz, have been found by Mr. Howell Parker, in the vein alluded
to, and were I to judge from the appearance of the vein and the specimens he showed me, he will do
well to pursue this vein further. This valuable mine is situated four miles south of the Yadkin in the
northwest corner of the county, and owned by Mr. Howell Parker & brothers (Carolina Watchman,
July 5, 1838).
The July 1838 article states that mining had occurred on the property for about 35 years and that it was one
of the first such mines in the state, which corresponds well to the ca. 1805 date suggested by Knapp and
Glass (Knapp and Glass 1999:10). Another 1838 visit to the mine appears in the Western Carolinian:
We have seen within a few days past, several persons from Parker's gold mine-28 miles below
this place in Montgomery County, from whom we learn that the miners are now enjoying a golden
harvest in that deposit. A new place has recently been discovered which is yielding large amounts
of the precious metal. There are now 150 or 160 persons at work on the ground, and all doing
profitable business. The new deposit is situated in Mr. Parker's cornfield, near the house, and the
gold is found in the surface of the earth, which is removed to the nearest stream, and washed
(Western Carolinian, August 24, 1838).
The 1828 and 1838 newspaper articles indicate that energetic mining activity was underway; mining
activity increased throughout the region after the discovery of gold (specifically gold from a quartz vein)
on the Barringer property in 1824; spurred by the gradual decline of cotton prices after 1820, more and
more landowners looked for gold on their lands (Knapp and Glass 1999:14). Elisha Mitchell included the
Parker Mine on his state geological survey map based on his 1827 trip through the area (Knapp and Glass
1999:14).
One of the 1838 articles refers to the use of hand rockers. These simple devices were in use almost from
the inception of mining in the state (Knapp and Glass 1999:10). The reference to the number of workers or
any workers at all is rare (that number likely refers to individuals working for themselves on leased plots).
Landowners routinely allowed their creeks to be mined in exchange for a percentage of the haul (Knapp
and Glass 1999:12), and it appears that this occurred at the Parker Mine. One of the articles states a figure
of $200,000 for the amount of gold taken from the mine. This is presented as an estimate, derived from
sources unknown, but this amount is cited in several subsequent communications (but never with a
reference to an associated date or source). Any existing records that report mine profits at any time in its
history are not known to TRC, and it is possible that this figure simply became a kind of shorthand for
stating profitability over time. One online resource (https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/) estimates
that the amount recorded in 1838 would be worth nearly $5.8 million in 2021 when adjusted for inflation
rates.
A September 23, 1846 notice, "Gold Mine for Sale," gives notice of the impending sale of the mine after
the death of John Parker (John Parker, one of Howell Parker Sr.'s sons is interred at the family cemetery;
see Chapter 8). The subsequent owner of the mine is unknown, but it was likely Howell Parker Jr., at least
in part, who may have later passed it on to his son, Arnold.
By order of the Court of Equity held for Stanly County, Fall Term, 1846, will be sold by the Clerk
and Master on the 3d day of November, next at the late residence of John Parker, dec'd, a lot of 37
acres of land whereon is the valuable and well-known Gold Mine, known as the Parker Mine, with
several veins now open and worked to some extent. Also, one other tract adjoining, well improved,
with all necessary buildings and open land sufficient to work eight or ten hands, mostly fresh land.
The tract contains 412 acres: also, another tract of 170 acres adjoining the same unimproved...
(Carolina Watchman, October 9, 1846).
92

The Parker Mine is mentioned in an 1856 survey publication (Emmons 1856); in Chapter XXI, Emmons
discusses a category of mines containing "gold associated with quartzite and slates, and frequently in
irregular veins" ...
The Parker mine of Stanly county I believe should be ranked in this class, inasmuch as no vein has
been discovered which carries gold. The rock is a decomposed mass, rather tenacious; but the gold
is distributed in scams. Some deep excavations have been made. Two hundred thousand dollars in
gold have been obtained from this material, which it is needless to say differs from the auriferous
quartz grits of the branch mines. Several masses weighing four and five pounds were taken from the
surface. The whole area, composing three or four acres, seems to be a decomposed slate through
which the metal is distributed (Emmons 1856:140).
No records for mining activity have been found between the years 1856 and 1881. In 1881, the mine was
up for sale, perhaps by Captain M.S. Parker or Colonel Arnold Parker, as indicated by "A Notice for Sale
of Parker Mine" in the Carolina Watchman, March 10, 1881:
In Stanly County, terms one third cash, the balance in six months, with interest on the deferred
payment, bond and security required, title retained til purchase money is paid. This is one of the
oldest mines in the state and is very valuable for gold. There is no mine in this part of the state that
has paid so well as this, according to the work. It has only been worked in hand rockers, and by that
process there has been found two or three hundred thousand dollars' worth of gold, among which
were several nuggets weighing from one to five pounds each. There has been some difficulty with
the title to this property...
Any person wishing to examine the property before the day of sale can do so by calling on Capt. M.
S. Parker, who lives near the mine, or Col. Arnold Parker, who lives two miles west of Albemarle.
The latter has some fine specimens that were taken from this mine... (Carolina Watchman, March
10, 1881).
In a section titled "Mining Intelligence," the following appears in the Carolina Watchman, November 24,
1881:
Mr. J.J. Newman has had two offers to work the Parker placer mine. One by suction dredging and
the other by dry amalgamation. He has not accepted either proposition yet. This November weather,
which is no weather, or all weather, is hard on mining. There is very little doing outside the
established mine (Carolina Watchman November 24, 1881).
An 1887 entry for Stanly County, in the Engineering and Mining Journal (EMJ) states:
Mr. William Nance, a London mining engineer, has succeeded in interesting a number of English
capitalists in the placer and quartz vein mines in this county. The properties alluded to are the `Giles"
and "Parker" mines. The former has been operated for about a year on a small scale, and has been
made, for the most part, remunerative during that time. The ore is free milling —free gold in milky
quartz —and is taken from veins which have not, however, been worked to any great depth. The
Parker property is said to be one of the best-known placer mines in the state, and has been worked
with varying profit for a number of years; lately, however, it has been embarrassed by litigation,
which has now been settled (EMJ 1887).
An 1887 deed records the authorization for Arnold Parker, his wife Lucinda, and others to sell a ca. 540-
acre tract known as the Parker Gold Mine Tract to Stanly Freehold Gold Mines, exempting the plot of land
containing the "old Parker family burying ground" (Stanly County Deed Book 16:562-564). This event
marks the beginning of foreign corporate ownership of the Parker Mine, which was consolidated with three
other mines by Stanly Freehold Gold Mines Ltd., an English corporate entity; see additional discussion
below). The collective mining group is referred to as the Stanly Freshold (sic) in an 1896 state publication,
which lists it as one of the most prominent mines in Stanly County (SBA 1896:396).
93

The Parker Mine is mentioned often in the North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS) bulletins that were
published during the late nineteenth century up to WWI. One of these, written in 1887/1888, describes the
Parker Mine (Kerr and Hanna 1893:258-259).
The Parker Mine, in Stanly County, at Bilesville, 10 miles southeast of Gold Hill, has a small but
very rich tract of some 3 or 4 acres. It has yielded a large number of nuggets, all of which —estimated
to have an aggregate value of $200,000.00—have been taken from the surface or from very shallow
pits. The nature of the surface is strongly suggestive of the Portis and Shuford mines, and like those
localities, needs hydraulic treatment.
Some recent deep work has shown that the opinions as to the richness and depth of this mine needs
modification; the quartz veins are considerably more permanent in depth than was formerly
supposed. The veins or seams extend far more than 3,000 feet. There are 3 main veins, having a
strike of N. 30' to 40' E, and a dip 50' to 60' West. Other seams do not conform either in dip or
strike, but run in various directions. These veins or seams range from 6 to 18 inches in thickness,
and sometimes even more, and are everywhere accompanied in depth by lenticles of quartz from a
line to 4 inches in width. The schists accompanying the veins are auriferous for 2 or 3 feet on both
sides of the vein. Masses of chlorite schist are occasionally found with free gold embedded (Kerr
and Hanna 1893:258-259).
Assays of the average of large bodies of quartz (143a) and auriferous schist (143b) are as follows:
Gold Ores, Parker Mine, Stanly County
Quartz Bodies (143a) and Auriferous Schist (143b)
Gold, ounces per ton 65-100 35-100
Silver, ounces per ton 25-100 15-100
Nuggets in abundance continue to be found, while quartz with gold attached is often met with; the
material is always free milling.
Through weathering, the gold has been widely scattered through the surface soil to a depth of 10 or
20 feet. Large areas of gravel, and several gulches are rich enough to repay in large hydraulic
operations; and the fragments of ore they contain, sometimes to the extent of one -fifth of the whole
bulk, constitute a valuable ore, admirably suited to mill work. The immediate formation of the
Parker Mine is chloritic (sometimes horneblendic) schist, with a variety of obscure porphyry. The
weathering agencies have reached to a depth of a hundred feet or more (Kerr and Hanna 1893:258-
259).
A near -contemporary observation appeared in the Carolina Watchman in an August 13, 1891 article:
As promised a few weeks ago a representative from the Watchman has been sent to visit this
property and give our readers a description of the work going on, as it is the only hydraulic plant in
operation in the state. In the first place, a word in regard to the property itself. The Parker mines, 24
miles southeast of Salisbury, at present comprises some 1,500 acres of land, including the lands
formerly known as the Parker, Biles, Johnny Parker, and Flint Springs mines, each, by itself, having
a good reputation as a gold producer during the years in which they were worked and before the
present company acquired them by purchase, the Parker alone, according to Professor Kerr, State
Geologist, having produced over $200,000 in nuggets. This we consider an under -estimate, it being
the amount of which actual toll or royalty has been paid to the owners; it would be very strange if
in a mixed lot of tributers, with no one to watch them and each working on his own account, large
quantities had not been carried off without any account being rendered. The gold found on this
property was nearly all coarse gold and nuggets, a great many pieces weighing from one to four -
and one-half pounds. There is a story among old people in the neighborhood, which seems to be
well authenticated, that a large piece, perhaps rivaling the famous 28-pound Cabarrus county nugget,
was found and cut up and divided amongst a number of hands who were working together at the
94

time. Most of the larger nuggets were found on a part of the property bordering on what is known
as the Tan Yard Branch.
The Biles, Johnny Parker, and Flint Springs mines each having good records, and on the former,
more especially, a number of stringers have been sunk to various depths which were very rich.
Nearly all these strings or seams dip towards the main vein, and it seems strange that a shaft has
never been sunk on it to such a depth that these seams would form a junction with it. This has been
done on a property (the Jin mine) in the same neighborhood during the last month. A small string
dipping towards a larger but lean vein had been sunk on to a depth of 85 feet and abandoned some
twenty years ago but the old shaft was cleaned out and sunk only five feet deeper to where this
stringer intercepted the vein and now they have a vein 2'/2 feet wide that is worth way up in the
hundreds. However, this article was not meant to make any suggestion to the company but only to
describe the manner of working for the benefit of those of our readers who know nothing about the
hydraulic process.
Of course, as the name suggests, water is the prime and almost only factor in these operations and
to obtain it an immense double action Worthington pump with a working capacity of 1,500,000
gallons every 24 hours is placed at the Yadkin river, four miles away, and through 20-inch iron pipes
the water is forced to a large tank built on the top of a framework some forty-five feet high, on top
of the highest point on the company's property. From this tank the water is carried by a twelve inch
pipe to the gulch, giving it a head of 110 feet, where it is forced with tremendous power, at the rate
of 1,000 gallons a minute through a 2 or 2'/z inch nozzle against the dirt or gravel, tearing it to pieces
and washing it through a line of sluice boxes, 360 feet long in which the gold is caught by riffles, to
the mill house where the loose ore is caught and held for milling and the rest passes on through a
quarter of a mile more of sluices. Some idea of the power of this water as it comes from the nozzle
can be formed when we state that large masses of chloritic schist, which seems to be the formation
here, are cut down and torn to pieces by the force of the water without the aid of blasting.
Considerable dead work is being done now in cutting through a hill to a depth of over 30 feet for
the purpose of saving every inch of fall and as soon as it is completed they will be able to hydraulic
the Tan Yard Branch, where most of the big gold was found, and which heretofore could not be
done for lack of tailing ground, as well as a large territory that has undoubtedly proven itself to be
pay ground in the past.
Now a word of commendation for the company's manager Capt. H.A. Judd. With his close attention
to the business in hand, looking after the work both early and late, taking an active part in it with
the hands whenever it is necessary, and his good judgement in all matters pertaining to it, the
company have in it an efficient and careful manager, and we sincerely hope that as soon as the cut,
on which work is now going on, is completed and regular washing begins, that the company's, as
well as Capt. Judd's, fondest hopes will be realized by the findings of large quantities of gold
(Carolina Watchman, August 13, 1891).
The following appeared in a subsequent edition of the Carolina Watchman on October 8, 1891:
Capt. Judd, manager of the Parker Freehold Mines, has returned from London and it is reported will
have a shaft sunk on the company's property to a depth of three hundred feet. Hydraulicking is being
pushed and we learn that they are now washing some of the best ground that has yet been worked
(Carolina Watchman, October 8, 1891).
There is so little readily available information about the people that worked at the mine throughout its
history that the news that appears in an 1895 newspaper is especially unfortunate. News of a fatal incident
at the mine appeared in an edition of the Goldsboro Headlight, dated October 24, 1895:
A dynamite explosion in the magazine of the Parker gold mine at New London, Stanly County,
Monday morning, blew to atoms two negroes, Jackson Parker and one Hinson and wrecked the
building (Goldsboro Headlight October 24, 1895).
95

Work stopped at the mine for a time after the accident (Knapp and Glass 1999:136). In an 1896 publication,
Nitze and Hanna (1896) mainly provide detail about the output of the Parker Mine, one of the seven Stanly
County mines described in that publication.
As described by Nitze and Hanna (1896:83-84):
The Parker Mine is situated at New London, about 9 miles northwest of Albemarle. The country
slates are those of the Monroe type; they are intruded by successive flows of greenstone porphyry
and some more basic eruptives, in part brecciated. The mine shafts have disclosed at least two such
eruptive sheets, from 2 to 3 feet each in thickness, lying nearly horizontally and separated by
sedimentary slates. In places the greenstone is sheared into nearly vertical schistose masses.
Numberless auriferous quartz stringer veins, from less than one to eighteen inches in thickness,
intersect the country rock in all directions. Besides these several larger and more persistent veins
occur. The quartz is imperfectly crystallized and often cellular. Weathering agencies have
distributed the gold through the decomposed rock (soil) to depths of 10 or 20 feet. A combination
sluicing and milling process (Dahlonega method) was in operation here at one time; the results,
however, were unsatisfactory. The flushed material milled only about 50 cents per ton, although the
quartz itself is shown by some assays to run as high as $4 to $6 per ton. It was, however,
impracticable to select it.
The principal yield of gold at the Parker mine has been from the old gravel channels. The gold was
coarse, and in nuggets. The largest nugget of which there is accurate knowledge weighed 8 pounds,
3 oz., 2 dwts. The aggregate production is estimated at $200,000.00.
The value of the gravel is stated to vary from $00.44 to 82.44 per cubic yard. Although hydraulicking
is at present abandoned, the placer ground has not been exhausted. At one point, examinations have
shown that the bed rock of the gravel channel is a sheet of soft decomposed greenstone but 3 feet in
thickness, and that this is underlaid by still another gravel deposit, which will warrant hydraulic
operations. The hydraulic plant, which is in good condition, consists of a pumping station at the
Yadkin river, 41 miles distant, and an iron pipeline to a standpipe, situated near the mine. The head
furnished from the standpipe to the workings is about 90 feet.
The present work at this mine consists in the development of some of the larger quartz veins. The
"Ross" shaft is being sunk and it is expected to intersect an ore body by means of a crosscut
extending eastward from the 120-foot level. Some surface washing is being carried on with the water
pumped from the above shaft, the general returns being 80 to 100 dwts. per month. One nugget of 3
ounces was recently found (November 1895) (Nitze and Hanna 1896:83-84).
Some assays of the vein quartz show the following results:
Assays, Gold Ore from the Parker Mine, Stanly County (from Nitze and Hanna 1896:84).
No.78
No.79
No. 80
No.81
Gold, per ton
$13.43
$7.23
$4.14
$3.10
Silver, per ton
0.32
0.20
trace
trace
$13.75
$7.43
$4.14
$3.10
No. 78. Quartz vein. Upcast shaft.
No. 79. Accompanying wall rock (schist), 5 feet thick.
No. 80. Flint Spring vein.
No. 81. Other quartz vein.
An 1897 bulletin (Nitze and Wilkens 1897) provides substantial details about the operations at the Parker
Mine and includes photographic plates, which show a standpipe atop a tall, supporting structure, and
activities related to the hydraulic mining process, including the monitor in action and related sluicing. (An
0

1891 newspaper article suggests that much of the infrastructure required by hydraulic mining and described
in the 1897 publication was already in use at that time.)
As described by Nitze and Wilkens (1897:54-55):
The Parker mine (the New London Estates Company, Ltd.) is situated at New London, 9 miles
northwest of Albemarle. The property comprises about 1,200 acres. It is now in litigation. The
country slates resemble those of the Monroe type (see p.16); they are intruded by successive flows
of greenstone porphyry and more basic eruptives, in part brecciated. The mine shafts have disclosed
at least two volcanic sheets, from 2 to 3 feet thick each, lying horizontally and separated by
sedimentary slates. In places the greenstone is squeezed into nearly vertical schistose masses. The
country is intersected by numberless quartz -stringers and several larger quartz -veins, which are
auriferous.
The principal work at the Parker consisted of hydraulicking (see Plate IV) in several old gravel
channels, which are stated to have yielded over $200,000. The gold was coarse, usually in nuggets
from a few pennyweights up to 3 pounds. The fineness of the gold is 950 to 970. The value of the
gravel is stated to vary from 44 cents to $2.40 per cubic yard. In one of the hydraulic cuts the bedrock
underlying the grit was decomposed greenstone. Test -pits have shown that this bedrock is but a
sheet of greenstone about 3 feet thick, and that it is underlain by another auriferous gravel deposit,
which may be considered virgin ground, as no attempt has yet been made to work it. There would
be no great difficulty in getting a sluice on the bedrock beneath this lower grit, with sufficient fall
to carry off the tailings.
The hydraulicking plant is very extensive. It consists of a Worthington compound duplex
condensing pump, with two 100 H.P. boilers (using 7 cords of wood per day, at $1 per cord), situated
on the Yadkin river, 4 1/4 miles from the standpipe at the mine, and 340 feet below the same. The
pipeline on the lower lift is 20 inches in diameter, flange -riveted, made of 3/16-inch steel; on the
upper lift is a similar steel pipe 12 inches in diameter. Expansion joints are placed every quarter of
a mile, and the full length of sleeve (8 inches) is necessary to take up the maximum expansion and
contraction of the pipe caused by changes of temperature. The capacity of the pump is 1,500,000
gallons in 12 hours; the head furnished from the top of the standpipe to the mine -workings is about
90 feet (Plate V). Besides the gravel channels at the Parker, the saprolites are, in general, auriferous;
and a combination sluicing and milling process (Dahlonega method, see p. 107) was at one time
attempted here. The bank was undercut with powder and the shattered mass moved with the giants.
The material ran about 50 cents at the mill; but only a small percentage of it was quartz, and an
attempt to select the latter proved unsuccessful. The tailings in the mill were reasonably low; but
the loss of fine gold in the overflow from the mill tank, in connection with the exhaustion of the
richer available saprolites, led to the abandonment of the process.
The mill is a 10-stamp one, built by the Mecklenburg Iron Works of Charlotte, N.C. The weight of
the stamps is 650 pounds. In the Dahlonega practice 4 drops were given 80 times per minute, and
round punched screens were used; there were no inside plates. About 50 percent of the gold was
saved in the mortars between the dies. The total cost of milling (including 1 cord of wood at $1),
with 1 hand on each shift at $1, was $4 per 24 hours. The last work done at the Parker (fall and
winter of 1895) was that of prospecting some of the larger quartz veins on the property. The Ross
shaft was sunk to a depth of 130 feet and a vein was opened by a crosscut, showing sulphurets of
iron and copper in white quartz, which gave assay values ranging from $3 to $12 per ton. The same
vein had been exposed in a 130-foot shaft to the west of the Ross, where assays of the quartz showed
values of $3 at the 85-foot and $7 at the 130-foot level. The dimensions of the Ross shaft are 5 feet
6 inches by 11 feet inside measurements, with three compartments, the ladder -way being in the
center. The timbers (10 by 12 inches, white oak) are placed in square sets, with 5 feet centers. The
cost of timber is $7 per thousand.
97

The cost of the shaft (including timbering) was estimated at $10 per foot for the first hundred feet,
$12 for the next hundred, and $15 for the last fifty feet. Cost of labor:
Mine foreman (who also does the framing).............................................12-hr. shift, $1.50
Helper to same.............................................................................. 12-hr. shift, 1.00
Blacksmith....................................................................................10-hr. shift, 1.00
Underground men................................................................12-hr. shift, 75 to 85 cents
(Nitze and Wilkens 1897:54-55).
The Dahlonega method (an early hydraulic mining technique) is described by Nitze and Wilkens
(1897:107-108).
The Dahlonega method of mining and milling is one which is particularly adapted to the large bodies
of low-grade auriferous saprolitic schists, such as exist in the Dahlonega district of Georgia. It
consists in cutting down the soft, decomposed ore -bodies by means of a hydraulic giant, the water
from which carries the material through a line of sluices to the mill situated some distance below
the workings, usually on the banks of a stream from which it derives its waterpower. In the mill the
coarser and heavier portions are retained by means of a screen, and are fed to the battery by hand,
the mud and fine silt being carried through into the river. Generally, a third of the gold saved is
caught (Nitze and Wilkens 1897:107-108).
Figure 6.2 shows a photographic plate that appears in Nitze and Wilkens (1897:Plate IV), captioned
"Hydraulic Mining, Parker Mine, Stanly County N.C." and shows water blasting (from a monitor, or giant)
into the side of a deeply gouged pit. The photograph shows two individuals working the end of the monitor.
The resulting runoff from the operation can be seen in an adjacent channel that has been cut within the
chute.
Figure 6.3 shows two photographic plates as they appear in Nitze and Wilkens (1897: Plate V). The first is
captioned "Stand -Pipe, Parker Mine," and shows a three-story tall wooden tower (45 feet tall, according to
the earlier 1891 newspaper account, but 90 feet tall, according to Knapp and Glass 1999:136) with a
standpipe on top, from which a large pipe descends. The standpipe is situated in a cleared area behind a
fence next to a single -story frame structure. The second photograph on Plate V is titled "Sluices, Parker
Mine, Stanly County," and shows two intersecting, wooden sluice boxes in an artificial channel. The
photograph shows the sluice in operation and filled with running water; workers with shovels and/or other
implements are working the sluice while three other individuals (one accompanied by a dog) watch over
the operation. There appear to be at least two structures in the distant background.
The 1897 description (which appears to describe conditions as they were in 1895) along with the
accompanying photographs is the most detailed of any of those found by TRC related to the Parker Mine.
The location of the structures that are mentioned, including the standpipe (90 feet from the workings), the
stamp mill, the powder magazine (Goldsboro Headlight 1895), and structures that appear in one of the
photographs are not known. The stamp mill would have presumably been situated near the place where the
ore was extracted (Nitze and Wilkens 1897) and would have been associated with a mill house (as
mentioned in the 1891 newspaper article). A similar ten -stamp mill (which used 750-pound stamps) also
built by the Mecklenburg Iron Works was used at the Reed Gold Mine in Cabarrus County, ca. 1895
(American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1983; Knapp 1975).
The Parker Mine is not mentioned in a 1902 NCGS economic paper that discusses mining in 1901 (Pratt
1902), and it is possible that the Parker Mine was not active that year. The mine is included in an inventory
of active gold and silver mines from 1903 to 1904 (Pratt 1904:13, 14).
W.

In an entry describing the Parker Mine in 1906, Pratt (1907:57) reports "that the mine has long been idle."
He goes on to report:
The mine was opened by an English company using the Dahlonega method. They sluiced a ditch 30
feet deep for half a mile to the center of the deposit. This did not pay until the network of veins was
reached during the last month. Work was abandoned the next month as a result of orders from
England. At intervals the negroes do a littler washing for placer gold above the saprolites, paying
25 percent, royalty. There are parts of this deposit that could probably be worked at a profit by the
M.P. & C. machines (Pratt 1907:58).
No production is reported in the county during 1910 (Pratt and Berry 1911:16). The Parker Mine is also not
mentioned in a 1911 economic paper, which states that there was only small placer production in the county
in 1908 (Pratt and Berry 1911:12). Although no mines are named, a report for the years 1915-1917 states
that "a little placer gold was recovered from deposits near New London, in Stanly County, during 1915,
1916, and 1917" (Pratt and Berry 1919:26).
Figure 6.2. Hydraulic mining at the Parker Mine (from Nitze and Wilkens 1897:Plate IV).

N. G. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. RULLETIX 10, PLATE V.
STAND -PIPE, PARKER MINE.
SLUICES, PARKER MINE, STANLY COUNTY, N. C.
Figure 6.3. Standpipe and sluices at the Parker Mine (from Nitze and Wilkens 1897:Plate V).
100

The Parker Mine is described in a 1936 bulletin by the North Carolina Department of Conservation and
Development, where it is one of five mines described in Stanly County (Bryson 1936):
The Parker Mine is located at New London about 7 miles northwest of Albemarle. The country rock
is the typical Monroe type intruded by successive flows of greenstone porphyry and more basic
eruptives, in part brecciated. In places the greenstone is sheared into nearly vertical schistose masses.
The shafts have revealed two flows from 2 to 3 feet in thickness lying almost horizontally.
Numerous quartz stringers, varying from very thin to 18 inches or more in thickness, intersect the
country rock in all directions and at all angles. In addition to these small stringers, there are larger
and more persistent veins. A peculiar property of these quartz veins is that they are usually
imperfectly crystallized and often cellular.
During the process of weathering, the rock has been decomposed to depths of 10 to 20 feet, the
breaking down of the quartz veins having caused an irregular distribution of the gold through this
decomposed rock. In the low places there has been a greater concentration of the quartz fragments
and gold. However, a great many of these deposits have been completely hydraulicked and the gold
recovered.
The principal yield of the gold at this mine has been from the old gravel channels. Most of the gold
was and is very coarse, and a great number of nuggets have been found, the largest of which weighed
8 pounds, 3 ozs., and 2 dwts. In 1935 other nuggets have been encountered, which weighed from 1
to 2'h pounds each.
The value of the gravel, as shown by numerous pannings and assays, ran from 40c to $3.20 per yard.
Even though over $200,000 in gold has been produced from the gravels on this property, they are
by no means exhausted. Pits which have been sunk on the placer material have revealed the
greenstone flows underlain with other gravel which has not been hydraulicked and may warrant
further development. However, this could only be determined by further prospecting and sampling.
Three shafts have been sunk on the property, the "Ross shaft," 120 feet in depth; the "Crib shaft,"
80 feet in depth; and another shaft said to be over 100 feet in depth. These old shafts have not been
unwatered for several years, and little is known as to the value of ores encountered in them.
However, miners who have worked in these shafts state that some very high-grade ores were
encountered and have been by no means exhausted.
In the early part of 1933 the property was optioned by E.C. Gallagher of New York. The State
Geologist supervised the sampling of the deposits, and approximately 7 tons of material were taken.
About 400 pounds of the quartz vein, 600 pounds of the schist vein, and 6'/z tons of the placer
material were concentrated to 1,500 pounds and shipped to the Columbia School of Mines for
testing. Instead of running the samples separately as taken from the property, the ore was milled and
gave an average of better than $3 per ton. However, since the material was mixed before milling,
the source of the gold was not known, whether from the quartz vein, schist zone, or placer. Advice
was given to re -sample the deposit and run the material separately, but this was not done. A small
mill was erected to handle the surface material but proved unsuccessful and was soon abandoned. It
was stated by the owners that the mill did not recover the values. This was demonstrated by the fact
that a G-B machine recovered values up to $9 per ton from the tailings, a great deal of which was
nugget gold.
In 1935 the North Carolina Mining Corporation, Washington, D.C., assumed control of the property.
A tunnel was sent into the hillside for a distance of 250 feet to intersect any veins that might be
found cutting the country rock. At a distance of 150 feet from the adit a quartz vein varying from 6
to 18 inches in width was encountered. In addition several small stringer veins were also found. A
shaft about 15 feet in depth was sunk on the quartz vein encountered in the tunnel. From this small
shaft about 15 or 20 pounds of gold were taken, most of which was in nuggets up to 2'/2 pounds in
weight.
101

The property has been sold to another group which plans to develop it on a large scale (Bryson
1936:79-81).
The Parker Mine is referenced in regard to late nineteenth or early twentieth century placer mining; Bryson
(1936:156) relates:
In such sections of the State, especially at the Portis and Parker mines, the abundance of plastic
clays has made the recovery of the gold an impossibility. Several methods have been tried out
unsuccessfully to disintegrate the clays. The clay is so tenacious that if trommels are used, the gold
is so pulverized that it floats out in the clay slimes. The Snodgrass machines and log washers have
also proved unsuccessful because the quartz fragments tend to prevent the revolving of the blades
within the drums. After the clay has been thoroughly disintegrated by these methods, the gold is
worn so fine that it floats out in the slimes and does not come in contact with the amalgamation
plates (Bryson 1936:156).
Bryson indicates that in 1933 "considerable prospecting and development work (was) being carried out
at ... the Parker and Thompson mines in Stanly County" ... (Bryson 1936:12). The mine is mentioned in a
discussion concerning "recent processing techniques attempted after the revival of the mining industry after
1930" (which were described as not successful due to the excessively clayey matrix):
The second process recently attempted in North Carolina is an electrical or Gardner process. The
plant erected at the Parker Mine, near New London in Stanly County, did not prove successful and
was soon abandoned. Various reasons are given for the abandoning of this process at the Parker
Mine. among which are: the clay or saprolite did not contain sufficient gold; the process failed to
recover the gold; and there was some dispute between the man financing the proposition and the
engineer in charge.
The plant consisted of a revolving drum or disintegrator, sluice boxes, the necessary screens, and
the electrical amalgamator. The ore was mined with drag, emptied on a grizzly, the coarse material
piled for later grinding, and the fines shoveled by hand into the disintegrator. Some large quartz
pebbles were also placed into the disintegrator to help break up the plastic clay. The sludge from the
disintegrator emptied on a screen which took out bits of wood, leaves, and other foreign material.
The clay sludge emptied into sluice boxes with riffles for collecting the coarse gold. The fine gold
was to be recovered by the electric amalgamator.
The electric amalgamator consisted of two copper plates, one above the other and about one inch
apart. The plates were silvered, the top plate on the bottom and the bottom plate on the top, then
mercury applied on both plates. The two plates were used as the electrodes for an alternating current.
As the sludge passed between the plates the electric current caused the precipitation of the gold
either on the top or the bottom plate, depending on the direction of the flow of the current (Bryson
1936:21-22).
The fineness of the native gold in North Carolina varies throughout the State, and to some extent
with the different formations in which it occurs. In the northeastern section at the Portis Mine the
gold varies from 925 to 950, rarely reaching 985. The gold from mines in Moore County varies in
fineness from 700 to 7 50. The gold from the Davis and Stewart group of mines varies from 450 to
550, the lowest grade gold found in the State. Other mines of Union County, as the Phifer and
Howie, produce a gold varying in fineness from 725 to 800, rarely reaching 850. The gold from the
mines in the southern portion of Cabarrus County, as the Phoenix and the Reed, varies from 900 to
925 in fineness. At the mines in Mecklenburg County, as the Rudisil, Capps, and St. Catherine, the
fineness of the gold is from 900 to 925 also. The Gold Hill, Whitney and Isenhour group produces
a gold varying from 850 to 900 in fineness. Mr. Scott, operator of the Parker Mine, Stanly County,
states that the gold from this mine shows 910 in fineness, and Mr. Phillip Eames states that the gold
produced from the Young property in Davidson County varies from 950 to 975 fine. The mines west
of the Blue Ridge produce gold varying in fineness from 900 to 980.
102

The question arises as to the cause of the variance in the fineness of gold throughout the formations
of the State. Some have advanced the theory that the complete oxidation and weathering have
increased the fineness of gold. This is not true, however, due to the fact that the gold at depth from
the Davis -Stewart mines shows a fineness of from 450 to 550, while the gold at depth from the Gold
Hill group shows a fineness of from 850 to 900. On the other hand the placer gold from the Parker
Mine shows a fineness of 910... (Bryson 1936:40-41).
A 1948 USDOI publication (Pardee and Park 1948) describes the mine and its history into the early
twentieth century:
The Parker mine, at New London, was among the first discoveries in the southern Piedmont region,
and like the Reed mine it proved very rich and productive during the early part of the mining period.
It has been operated chiefly as a placer mine, but the more recent work has been done on lodes.
According to Kerr and Hanna27 a rich deposit 3 or 4 acres in extent was estimated to have yielded
$200,000 (about 10,000 ounces). Much of the gold was in the form of nuggets, the largest one
weighing 8 pounds, 3 ounces, 12 penny weight. From brief notes28 published during the period
1887-1902, it appears that between 1887 and 1896 an English company worked the placer deposit
extensively for a time and later did development work on some of the quartz veins. To obtain water
for mining, this company installed a pipeline 4'h miles long,29 through which water was pumped
from the Yadkin River. The capacity of the pumping plant was 1,500,000 gallons in 12 hours,
delivered against a head of 340 feet to a stand -pipe, from which a head of 90 feet for hydraulic
mining was obtained. Several large cuts were sluiced out, and the value of the gravel worked is said
to have ranged from 44 cents to $2.40 (0.022 to 0.12 ounce) per cubic yard. The company made an
unprofitable attempt to work the unmodified saprolite, as distinguished from that which had been
more or less concentrated by natural forces into placer. This material, with its included quartz veins,
was first washed through sluices and then treated in a stamp mill by the Dahlonega method. It was
claimed that the material reaching the mill contained 50 cents worth of gold to a ton (0.025 ounce),
of which half was recovered in the mortars, the remainder being carried away by the overflow
because of its extreme fineness.
In 1895 and 1896 two shafts were sunk to explore some of the quartz veins that had been uncovered
in the course of placer mining. At a depth of 130 feet a crosscut from one of these -the Ross shaft -
opened a vein (width not given) of quartz with iron and copper sulfides, said to assay from $3 to
$12 a ton, presumably in gold. The other shaft, west of the Ross, explored a vein from which assays
of $3 per ton at 85 feet and $7 per ton at 130 feet were obtained.
At the end of 1896 the property was reported to be "in liquidation." A little placer work was done
in 1899 and again in 1902, when a 10-pennyweight nugget is said to have been found.
Early in 1935 tests to recover gold from the saprolitic material were made under the direction of E.
M. Scott. In the course of this work an adit level was run through the saprolite to the westernmost
of the old shafts. About 160 feet from the shaft (fig. 23) and 20 feet below the surface the adit
penetrated a quartz vein at a place where it happened to contain a shoot or "pocket" that yielded
several hundred ounces of coarse gold. In April 1935, shortly after all the ore in sight had been
removed, a vein about 18 inches wide split in the middle by a narrow horse of decomposed schist,
was exposed in the adit. On one side of the adit there was a layer of massive white bull quartz, and
on the other side there was quartz stained with iron and manganese oxides. A specimen said to have
come from the rich "pocket" consists of quartz with numerous cavities, some of them containing
oxides of iron and manganese in small amount, together with coarse grains of gold that show crystal
forms. The adit reached the shaft at a depth of 60 feet, where it was still above the lower limit of the
saprolite. It passes through saprolite broken by numerous joints and seams, which are lined with
manganese oxides (see fig. 24). Several quartz veinlets in addition to the one containing the rich
pocket were penetrated, but none of them showed any visible gold.
103

Specimens from the dumps of the shafts indicate that the rock beneath the saprolite is a schist derived
from lava and tuff of the volcanic series. The placer deposit consisted of the upper part of the
saprolite, which had moved more or less downslope as a result of the slowly acting process called
"hill creep." This material ranged from a few feet to 6 or 8 feet in thickness, and the gold in it was
presumably derived from an unknown thickness of material that has been eroded away. In most
places at least half of the gold and half of the residual quartz fragments were concentrated in the
lower part of the deposit, locally called the grit layer. If the available information is correct, the 3 or
4 acres of "rich" placer must have yielded at least $5 (1/4 ounce) per cubic yard. Successive mining
operations have left no placer material worth mentioning on the higher ground; the adjoining
lowlands, however, may still contain some pay dirt here and there.
The saprolite contains numerous quartz veins in place besides those above mentioned. Most of them
are small and not persistent. A few are a foot or two wide and fairly long, but all tend to pinch and
swell irregularly. Most of them consist of little else than massive white quartz. Some show
noteworthy amounts of iron oxides, and cavities from which sulfides may have been leached.
Pockets of rich gold ore may of course be found in any of them, but on the whole such pockets
appear to be very rare. Viewed broadly, the deposit appears as a magnified stringer lode, but
available evidence indicates that no large part of it is rich enough to be workable (Pardee and Park
1948:93-95).
The two figures included in the 1948 publication are titled "Plan of adit, Parker mine, Stanly County, N.C.,"
and "Sketch of quartz veins along joints in saprolite, Parker mine, Stanly County, N.C., new tunnel at 50
feet below the surface." These are both cross-section schematics and do not show the location of any works.
The Parker Mine is referenced in a 1962 publication, but the information provided is compiled from prior
early twentieth century reports and no new information is provided (Conley 1962:18). A 1968 publication,
"Principal Gold -Mining Districts of the United States," also references the Parker Mine (Koschmann and
Bergendahl 1968):
The Parker mine, located at the town of New London in northern Stanly County, was one of the first
mines to be worked in North Carolina and was very productive in the years before the Civil War.
Most of the gold was mined from colluvial placers, although veins were worked in later years. In
the 1890's considerable underground exploration was done with favorable results, but apparently
there was no sustained production (Pardee and Park, 1948:94). In 1935, there was brief activity at
the Parker mine when a rich pocket in a quartz vein yielded several hundred ounces of gold (Pardee
and Park, 1948:94). The property was inactive from 1935 through 1959. Total gold production from
the Parker mine was somewhat in excess of the 10,000 ounces estimated from the early placer
operations (Pardee and Park, 1948:93). The country rock near the mine consists of argillaceous,
sericitic, and chloritic slates and schists of volcanic origin, which are typical of sequences observed
elsewhere in the slate belt (Bryson, 1936:64-79). The country rock is intruded by dikes and sills of
greenstone porphyry and other basic intrusives. The lode deposits consist of groups of quartz
stringers that interlace the country rock in many directions. The placers were derived from the deep
saprolite that blankets most of the area. Gold was mechanically concentrated in colluvial deposits
wherein the upper part of the saprolite moved downhill in response to frost action and gravity. These
placers were worked by hydraulic methods (Koschmann and Bergendahl 1968:215).
The Parker Mine is also mentioned in a 1976 publication and supported by a field survey conducted from
1970 to 1971 (Carpenter 1993 :1). The Parker Mine is one of nine mines in Stanly County that are described:
Location: The Parker mine is 0.50 mile southwest of New London and 2.8 miles southeast of
Richfield in northern Stanly County. From the intersection of U.S. Highway 52 and N.C. Highway
740, travel south on U.S. Highway 52 and turn west (right) onto the first street. Continue to the end
of this street and turn right. Travel 50 feet, then turn left onto the first dirt road. Follow the dirt road
approximately 0.4 mile crossing the railroad tracks. Continue to the top of the hill, take a dirt road
to the left and continue 75 yards to the mine.
104

Workings: The Parker mine was originally operated as a placer mine and most of the production has
been from placer material. Two shafts were sunk in 1895 and 1896 and placer work was again
carried out in 1899 and 1902. In 1933, the deposit was sampled, and an analysis was run on the
material. In 1935, an adit was run to the westernmost shaft and some gold was taken from a quartz
vein.
The workings were overgrown with vegetation in 1970 and both shafts were choked. The
westernmost shaft was 20 feet in diameter at the surface and choked to within 15 feet of the surface.
A trench southwest of this shaft trended N. 30° W. and was 20 feet wide, 7 feet deep and 75 feet
long. A considerable amount of vein quartz was encountered in this trench. Hydraulicking was
carried out south of the shaft and revealed a network of quartz stringers; however, no metallization
was noted in the quartz. In 1973, Mr. Jack Scott of the Zane Gold Mining Company, Zanesville,
Ohio, carried out some exploratory work at the mine.
Geology: The presence clandesitic tuff, argillite and basalt on the dumps indicates the mine may be
near the contact of two or more units. This supports the mapping of Conley (1962) who placed the
mine in andesitic tuff near the contact with basaltic tuff. Portions of the country rock are bleached
and silicified and contain disseminated pyrite and minor pyrrhotite. Shearing is also noted in the
bleached and silicified rock. A small amount of pyrite was in the unaltered tuff. Gold occurred in
quartz veins on the property; however, the small amount of quartz that was found on the dumps was
not mineralized (Carpenter 1993:73).
A 1978 compilation of published and unpublished information about North Carolina mines (Lutrell 1978)
includes the Parker Mine:
The country rock is chloritic schist derived from lava and tuff of the volcanic series, overlain by 100
feet or more of saprolite. Numerous auriferous quartz stringer veins from 1 to 18 inches thick
intersect the schist and saprolite in all directions. The quartz is often cellular and carries iron and
copper sulfides and iron and manganese oxides in addition to gold. In one quartz vein mined in 1935
a single shoot or pocket consisting of quartz with numerous cavities containing iron and manganese
oxides and coarse crystalline gold yielded several hundred ounces of gold. The placer deposit
consisted of the upper 6 to 8 feet of saprolite. Gold with quartz gravel was concentrated as a "grit"
layer in the lower part of this zone. The richest 3 or 4 acres yielded at least '/4 ounce of gold per
cubic yard, with a total of about 10,000 ounces of gold.
The Parker Mine was one of the first discoveries in the southern Piedmont region. Between 1887
and 1896 an English company, the Stanly Freehold Gold Mines, Ltd., worked the placer deposit
extensively in conjunction with the Biles, Flint Springs, and Johnny Parker mines. To obtain water
for mining the company installed a pipeline 41/4 miles long through which water was pumped from
the Yadkin River. The gravel is said to have carried from 0.022 to 0.12 ounce of gold per cubic yard.
An unsuccessful attempt was made to work unmodified saprolite with its quartz veins, but only
about half of the 0.025 ounce of gold per ton it carried could be recovered.
In 1895 and 1896 shafts were sunk to explore quartz veins. The Ross shaft reached a depth of 130
feet, the Cub shaft, 80 feet, and another shaft west of the Ross, 130 feet. At this time there was a 10-
stamp mill on the property. After 1896 the mine was in liquidation and was consequently worked
very little. In 1933 a sample consisting of 400 pounds of the quartz vein, 600 pounds of schist, and
6'/2 tons of placer material, gave an average of better than $3 per ton. M.E.C. Gallagher of New
York erected a small washing plant, but his attempt to recover the gold failed because of the clayey
nature of the material. In 1935 the North Carolina Mining Corp., Washington, D.C., explored a
quartz vein by means of a 250-foot tunnel and a 95-foot shaft (Luttrell 1978:356-358).
According to Luttrell (1978:169), the Stanly Freehold Gold Mine was a consolidated group consisting of
four mines (the Parker, Biles, Johnny Parker, and Flint Springs mines) situated near New London. This was
105

part of a boom of foreign (British) and outside (i.e., northern) investment in United States mining during
the late nineteenth century (Knapp and Glass 1999:131; Tischendorf 1955; see the Carolina Watchman
June 16, 1887, for a local opinion). According to Tischendorf (1955:516):
Shareholders in the Stanly Freehold Gold Mines were told by the directors after the company's
incorporation in 1887 that 12 months was needed to bring their property of about 820 acres in Stanly
County to its full dividend power of 35 percent a year28. The vendor's guarantee of 15 percent
dividend was paid the first year but it was the last the nearly 500 investors enjoyed. On February
24, 1890, the enterprise decided to close and organize the Parker Gold Mines in an attempt to raise
more capital. The company's failure was only postponed. Ten schilling shares sold for 2s. and
another reconstruction tried to pump life into the venture. The new concern, the New London Estates
Company, bought 1,000 acres near New London, Stanly County, and gave its attention to the
development of town lots29. The Stock Exchange Yearbook for 1897 listed the company as "in
liquidation" (Tischendorf 1955:516).
The Stanly Freehold company paid dividends for at least one year (Tischendorf 1955:517); although this
does not seem impressive, it appears to have been only one of a few such mines that paid any dividends at
all to its stockholders (Knapp and Glass 1999:136). It was registered May 13, 1887 for 90,000£ of authorized
capital; Parker Gold Mines was registered April 19, 1890 for 150,000£, and New London Estates Company
was registered January 26, 1893 with 75,000£ of authorized capital (Tischendorf 1955:518). An 1893 deed
records the liquidation of the Parker Gold Mines, Ltd. and refers to multiple tracts, including the 540-acre
tract known as the Parker Gold Mine tract (Stanly County Deed Book 19:527-534).
The mine is mentioned in the 2004-2005 winter issue of the North Carolina Postal Historian in a discussion
of Stanly County (Crumbley 2005).
Development of the county's largest gold mine, the Parker Mine near New London, began in 1859.
Like the Reed Mine, the Parker Gold Mine provided rich yields in its early mining period.
Established by the Parker family, the mine was sold to the New London Estate Company in the post -
Civil War period. During the nineteenth century, a total of eleven mines were active in Stanly
County: the Barringer Mine (Misenheimer vicinity); the Hathcock, Hearne and Lowder Mines
(Albemarle vicinity); the Parker Mine (New London vicinity); the Thompson Mine (Albemarle
vicinity); and the Crowell, Mumford, and Kimball Hill Mines (New London vicinity). The mines
often had small assay offices that assessed the value of the gold by U.S. government standards. At
least one, the Ingram gold mine, had a commissary. By the mid -twentieth century erratic gold yields
and rising labor costs had shut down all but the Parker Gold Mine, which, by the 1980s, had become
Morningstar Explorations (Crumbley 2005:4).
In summary, there are abundant references to the Parker Gold Mine and its various iterations from the 1820s
to the late twentieth century. These are briefly summarized below as they relate to chronology, changes in
mining methods and technology, economics and profitability, and associated individuals.
NRHP EVALUATION
Chronology
The history of mining on the property began with the discovery of gold on the Parker farmlands, sometime
during the early nineteenth century. It is not clear when gold was first discovered on the property, but
mining was apparently well underway as early as 1805 (Knapp and Glass 1999:10; see accounts above).
The mine was clearly very well established by 1838 and was considered highly productive during its early
years (see Knapp and Glass 1999:9). It is referenced in various sources in 1828, 1838, 1846, and 1856. It
is presumed that no significant work was conducted during the Civil War years (Botwick 2012:18), and
mining productivity had declined in the area in the years prior to the war (Knapp and Glass 1999:42).
IP

Neither the 1850 nor the 1860 census report any mining activity from Stanly and some other surrounding
counties (Knapp and Glass 1999:42, 82, 130). The next reference to the mine that was found during the
research for this Project is in 1881, when the mine was up for sale; the newspaper articles suggest that
operations were somewhat limited in that year (Carolina Watchman 1881a, 1881b). Kerr and Hanna (1893)
refer only to "some recent deep work" at the mine in 1887/1888 (Kerr and Hanna 1893).
In 1887 the mine property was acquired by an English corporation and its history of Parker family
ownership was over. It was operated with other mines (which appear to have occupied adjoining properties)
as part of the Stanly Freehold Mines initially (Luttrell 1978; Tischendorf 1955). The company was
reorganized in 1890 and renamed the Parker Gold Mines as part of an effort to attract new investment
(Tischendorf 1955). It appears to have been reorganized again in 1893 by the New London Estates
Company (Tischendorf 1955) but became insolvent and was in liquidation in 1897 (Nitze and Wilkens
1897; Tischendorf 1955).
The mine (or some part of the Freehold Mines concern) was clearly active in 1890, and still producing
nuggets, as an account in the Engineering and Mining Journal (1890:431) indicates:
Stanly Freehold Mines --In February, Capt. H.A. Judd, manager, made the unusual shipment of a
nugget of gold weighing 3 pounds, 1 ounce, 1 pennyweight, found in the Red Hill cut on the line of
sluiceway southeast of the Orchard gravel. This cut has produced several nuggets since, and with
the 15-foot breast of clay and gravel on South Branch, there is a good outlook for some time to come
(Engineering and Mining Journal 1890:431).
All sources indicate intense activity during its ownership by New London Estates, at least from 1895-1896,
including the excavation of new shafts. It was at this time that the structures and ancillary facilities related
to hydraulic mining were in operation, including the hydraulic plant (on the Yadkin River), as well as the
standpipe to supply water pressure and a stamp mill to process the ore (Nitze and Wilkens 1897); many of
these associated features appear to have been in place by 1891 (Carolina Watchman 1891a, 1891b).
Dynamite was also used during this time "to undercut the banks," as indicated by the explosion of the
mine's powder magazine in 1895 (Goldsboro Headlight 1895; see also Nitze and Wilkens 1897).
Activity at the mine was limited and sporadic during the years between ca. 1900 and 1930. Pardee and Park
(1948) refer "to a little placer work" performed in 1899 and 1902 (Pardee and Park 1948:93-95), and this
is largely confirmed by contemporary reports (e.g., Pratt 1902, 1904, 1907; Pratt and Berry 1911, 1919).
This reflects a state-wide trend during that time period, when gold production largely ceased (Botwick
2012:18).
This changed by 1933 when "considerable prospecting and development work (was) being carried out
at ... the Parker and Thompson mines in Stanly County" ... (Bryson 1936:12). This revival of activity was
related to the high price of gold during that time (Botwick 2012:21), unemployment due to the Great
Depression, new technological innovations that had become available for processing, and renewed interest
in gold and copper mining by large corporate interests outside of the state (Green 1937:2). This spike in
activity (which included attempts to explore existing vein deposits, including excavation of a new horizontal
adit) was short-lived. WWII and War Production Board Limitation Order L-208, as well as the drain on the
supply of available workers, brought an effective end to gold production in the state (Botwick 2012:22).
Koschmann and Bergendahl (1968) maintain that the mine was inactive from 1935 to 1959 (Koschmann
and Bergendahl 1968:215). By 1970, the works were "overgrown with vegetation and both shafts were
choked" (Carpenter 1993). Some exploratory work was performed in 1973 (Carpenter 1993), and in the
1980s the property was owned by Morningstar Explorations (Crumbley 2005).
107

Mining Methods and Technology
Most descriptions of the Parker Mine are focused on the economic potential, past production output, and
the exploitation potential of the local rock formations. Gold mining methods and related extraction and
processing technology are also mentioned or discussed, mainly from the early nineteenth to the early
twentieth centuries. Given its reported early prosperity, it is presumed that the Parker Mine was worked in
a manner similar to other (largely surface/placer) mines that operated in the antebellum period, with similar
implements (c.f., Botwick 2012; CALTRANS 2000, 2008; Hauser 2012; Hines and Smith 2002; Knapp
1975; Knapp and Glass 1999; Twitty and Fell n.d.). According to Green (1937), "the early mining
operations were almost entirely lacking in system, skill, and scientific method" (Green 1937:8). An 1838
newspaper account refers to the use of hand rockers, and the number of persons involved in mining (at that
time) indicates extensive panning and leased mining privileges. An 1881 newspaper account suggests that
only hand rockers (and similar devices) were used until that time for processing (Carolina Watchman,
March 10, 1881), which seems possible given the capital deemed necessary to seek veins and pursue lode
mining.
Later reports describe the equipment and infrastructure during the period of hydraulic mining in the late
nineteenth century, which was hinted in 1887/1888 (Kerr and Hanna 1893) and certainly underway by 1891
(Carolina Watchman 1891a, 1891b). Introduced in California in the early 1850s, the hydraulic method
allowed the rocky or gravelly matrix to be processed more efficiently and with fewer laborers (CALTRANS
2008; Hauser 2012:58), although it left a devastating environmental footprint (Hauser 2012:61-70), and
resulted in environmental lawsuits. A contemporary account from the Stanly Observer, that was reprinted
in the Charlotte News, March 8, 1890 states:
The arbitration case of W.H. Hearne vs. Stanly Freehold Mining Company at Bilesville, was settled
last Monday. Hearne claimed damages for injury to his mill on Long Creek, engine, boiler, land,
etc., caused by the red clay water coming down the creek from the gulch at the mine. As referees
for arbitration Hearne chose John S. Efird; the company, Capt. W.S. Parker. These two selected Eph
Eudy as the third man. The damages awarded was $300 to date of complaint (Charlotte News, March
8, 1890).
In North Carolina, hydraulic methods were used as early as 1858 in McDowell County (Hauser 2012:56;
Knapp and Glass 1999:41) but were rare prior to 1880 (Knapp and Glass 1999:134). Hydraulic systems
were a method of surface mining that involved applying water to a mine face or bank to wash out ore and
waste material, typically saprolite, which was then sorted and washed away in troughs or sluices and riffle
boxes (Botwick 2012:25; Knapp and Glass 1999:136). At the Parker Mine, water pressure was developed
by pumping water for miles from the Yadkin River to a standpipe, where gravity fed the water through
pipes to a nozzle known as a giant or monitor.
It is not clear when the first vertical shafts were excavated, but these were clearly present by 1895 (it is
unclear if earlier references to "some deeper excavations" refer to vertical shaft excavation and if so,
whether those required timbering and other infrastructure involved to access deep shafts). Underground
mining for gold in the Carolinas was more cost effective at reaching deeper ore, at least until the arrival of
mechanized excavation equipment in the early twentieth century (Botwick 2012:24-25). Prior to this,
surface mines were hand excavated or worked with drag scrapers pulled by mules or horses (Botwick
2012:25). By 1895 the mining efforts (which included surface mining using hydraulic techniques and
attempts to reach lodes via a few timber -framed vertical shafts) were supported by modern infrastructure
(Nitze and Wilkens 1897), made economically feasible by outside or foreign investment.
The revival of work at the mine in the 1930s included a variety of technological innovations that had been
developed by that time, particularly in regard to the mining of placer deposits. As described by Bryson
108

(1936:20-21), a washing plant had been constructed for sorting and processing, and included a "revolving
drum or disintegrator, sluice boxes, the necessary screens, and (an) electrical amalgamator." The ore "was
mined with drag, emptied on a grizzly, the coarse material piled for later grinding, and the fines shoveled
by hand into the disintegrator" (Bryson 1936:79-81). Bryson also refers to the former use of Snodgrass
machines, log rollers, and a G-B machine (Bryson 1936:79-81). The "G-B Portable Placer Machine" was
one of several gold recovery machines advertised in the 1920s and 1930s for the recovery of gold from
placer gravels (Averill 1946; CALTRANS 2008).
Economic History
No accounting records have been located concerning the economic production of the mine, and dollar
amounts that are repeatedly cited (e.g., the $200k figure) are general in nature and perhaps tainted by
speculation. Contemporary newspaper accounts from the late 1830s suggest that 150-160 persons were
engaged in work at the mine making up to 20 pennyweights per season. A small table shows wages for
skilled and unskilled labor from 1895 (see Nitze and Wilkins 1897), but it is not clear how many persons
were so employed. In general, the Parker Mine experienced the boom -and -bust cycles typical of mines in
the United States during the nineteenth to twentieth centuries (e.g., Aschmann 1970; Bostwick 2012,
Bunyak 1998; Fell and Twitty 1992; Swope and Gregory 2017). At many times in its history, especially in
the nineteenth century, as one of the earliest commercial industries in the county, the Parker Mine must
have been quite important to the local economy of the Bilesville/New London community.
Associated Individuals
Without further in-depth research, there is little information about the people involved in mining other than
some of the managers, like Captain Judd, an experienced miner who arrived from England to oversee the
mine during the late nineteenth century (Knapp and Glass 1999:136). An 1890 document shows that Judd
was authorized to represent the interests of Parker Gold Mines, Ltd. at its mines in North Carolina and
elsewhere in the United States (Stanly County Deed Book 19:345-346). The mine is associated with the
descendants of Howell Parker Sr., who died in 1796, prior to the discovery of gold. The mine property was
in the family in 1846, the year of John Parker's death. In 1838 the mine was reported as owned by Howell
Parker Jr. and his brothers (Carolina Watchman, July 5, 1838). John Parker and his younger brother, Howell
Jr., who died in 1858, remained in New London throughout their lives (as did their older brother William,
d. 1872), although three sisters and one brother moved to Alabama (Parker 2001). The mine was at least
partly owned by Arnold Parker (Howell Jr.'s son) and his wife when it was sold with several other tracts
containing mines to Stanly Freehold Mines Ltd. of London, England.
Archaeological Component
The 2021 investigation recorded one abandoned mine cut with a horizontal portal or adit (immediately
outside of the Project area) with a collapsed iron headframe, a possible structure location associated with a
few industrial and domestic artifacts, a small concrete dam and related sluice network, and 118 other surface
features, including prospecting pits and trenches of varying size, larger pits or cuts (including some
attributable to hydraulic mining), and a trench network that appears to represent a sluice box location
(Figures 6.4 and 6.5).
109

Figure 6.4. Site 31 ST289 features projected on aerial map.
110

Figure 6.5. Site 31ST289 selected features projected on aerial map.
111

Structure and Physical Infrastructure Evidence
Shafts. No vertical shafts (or indications of filled shafts) were encountered within the Project area (and their
location relative to the Project property is currently unknown), with the exception of an open pit (mine cut
18) containing some sort of horizontal portal located immediately adjacent to the Project area (Figures 6.6-
6.9; see Figures 6.4 and 6.5). As viewed from the upper surface of the open pit, this contained a narrow
horizontal opening, possibly an adit, or the portal to a vertical or inclined shaft. The collapsed remains of
an iron headframe were present within the pit, as was its substantial concrete support base. A utility pole
with electrical wire and glass or ceramic insulators was present on the east side of the feature, which
supported a pulley with a thin attached cable (Figure 6.9). This feature appears to represent early twentieth
century mining at the site, possibly during the brief 1930s period of activity, although it is possible that it
represents later modifications designed to exploit an existing (very late nineteenth century) shaft. At least
three vertical shafts are mentioned in late nineteenth century publications, which extended to depths of 80
to 130 feet. It is possible that some of the larger mining cuts mask collapsed shafts, although there was no
visible surface evidence for filled shafts, and not all of the open pits were accessed for cursory inspection
and probing.
Structure Evidence. No archaeological evidence of the structures that were described or depicted in late
nineteenth century publications or newspapers was encountered; these include the stamp mill and its
associated housing (Nitze and Wilkens 1897), the standpipe platform (Nitze and Wilkens 1897), a dynamite
magazine (see Goldsboro Headlight 1895) and the use of powder for blasting in conjunction with hydraulic
mining mentioned in Nitze and Wilkens (1897), and a few structures of unknown function depicted in Nitze
and Wilkens (1897) (see Figure 6.3). Any wooden structural elements have likely been destroyed by fire or
disintegrated through rot; most iron machinery components were likely recycled for use elsewhere or
salvaged for scrap during WWII. Other than the stamp mill, no substantial structures would have been
required for the type of mining and processing that was conducted. Archaeological evidence for stamp mills
(unless they are abandoned in place) is related to their size and permanency (CALTRANS 2008:100).
Although the stamp mill would have required a solid foundation (the mortar block) to support the pounding
of the battery, until the early twentieth century these were "typically built of logs, timber, or planks placed
on end and bolted together..." (Botwick 2012:35; Quivik 2003:8; Richards 1909).
A small, generally linear pile of mortared bricks represents an apparent former structure location
(designated as Structure 1), on the east side of the easternmost stream branch (Figures 6.10 and 6.11; see
Figure 6.5). Directly associated with the bricks was a decayed board section with embedded wire nails
(Figure 6.12). These nonmodern bricks suggest a northern wall for a small structure measuring ca. 12 X 20
feet. Although a section of an apparent eastern wall is present, the western wall is not as well represented,
and there is no trace of any southern wall. A few visible bricks suggest a trace of a floor, but these were
present immediately north of the structure area (outside the apparent footprint). Any associated foundation
remnants were not clearly defined. The location is tentatively defined as the location of a razed structure; it
does not appear to represent a house (although a few domestic artifacts were present, see below) and
potentially is related to mining activity. It may have functioned as a platform for machinery, perhaps for
processing (although no identifiable tailings were observed in the area).
Associated artifacts (including those within a ca. 20 in radius) suggest a late nineteenth to twentieth century
origin. These include a remnant timber frame (with wire nails), a wrought iron bed headboard (Figure 6.13),
a large iron hoop/ring/wheel (Figure 6.14), and an undecorated whiteware plate fragment (Figure 6.15b),
as well as a few unidentifiable iron artifacts. A large, linear mine cut or hydraulic gouge (mine cut 12) is
present in the vicinity, which extends east of the structure location before breaching the streambank to the
west.
112

Fµ, $
Vz
Oro
je
� w ��! ,5 - _.. � .. •-tip a s.y ''.�T�
i ,moo '
44
3 ` - _ -
-
74
imp
.:5-• _ `- /htr x _. .'^Y Wit.

`N
1v "-
rV
' ice• � �S�r7y� y ` �/'. -. � � "� ,
Lh t 1
-Ali j
y�j h •,� ~`�f'�:F~ �.. �t ilk '�'
r J q lINV
i�Y _
ii +

Poi`
t.' r
_X- :lip.,-�-•1-+ � k� - �'•�li �^R � �c � t� ,._ wiC:lk .'_ r Ji
t
as
,
.141,

Figure 6.12. Structure 1, mortared brick and beam section with wire nails at 31 ST289.
Figure 6.13. Wrought iron headboard at 31 ST289.
116

Figure 6.14. Iron hoop/ring/wheel at 31 ST289.
Figure 6.15. Stoneware vessel fragment (left) and whiteware plate fragment (right) from 31 ST289.
117

A few rusted, iron machinery parts were found in the extended vicinity northeast of Structure 1; these were
found together near the tracks at the eastern edge of the Project area (Figures 6.16-6.20; see Figure 6.5).
The first of these is a cylindrical, meshed drum with an internal camshaft (Figures 6.16-6.18); this
resembles various drum screens, rotary screens, rotary scrubbers, or trommels or component parts that are
depicted and described in early twentieth century publications (e.g., Averill 1946:30-33; International
Textbook Company 1900:sec. 43, page 64, figure 50).
Another adjacent piece resembles a hopper or bin containing a set of revolving teeth or prongs (see Figure
6.19). Its function is unknown, but it is possible that it was used in ore processing. No exact match was
found in a review of publications depicting late nineteenth to early twentieth century mining implements
(Averill 1946; CALTRANS 2008; Fell and Twitty 1992; International Textbook of Engineering and Mining
1900). Another artifact is an elongated iron frame of unknown function (Figure 6.20, iron object in
foreground). None of the pieces resembles any readily recognizable agricultural machine parts, however.
Other Infrastructure. A small, partially collapsed concrete dam was encountered about 70 m downstream
of the Structure 1 brick/mortar location (Figures 6.21 and 6.22; see Figure 6.5). The dam (when it was
intact) would have effectively blocked the stream flow at the location (there was no corresponding section
that would have indicated that it was part of a structure foundation rather than a dam). This is associated
with a series of linear trenches that emanate up the side slope and converge on a deeper trench adjacent to
the main channel of the stream (Figures 6.23-6.26; see Figure 6.4). In two places there are channels placed
to allow water to enter the stream (below any impoundment created by the dam). The deeper side channel
is flanked, at wide intervals, by a series of concrete piles (some contain upright iron beams, others exhibited
holes where the beams had rusted away or had been intentionally removed); along with the dam, these
appear to be associated with sluicing related to placer mining, as the embedded beams may have been used
to support a sluice box. A threaded iron pipe fragment was found at the head of one of the sluice trenches
(Figure 6.27), and a small rim fragment of stoneware (Albany -slipped interior and exterior) with a threaded
interior (see Figure 6.15a) was collected from the streambank at the dam location.
Figure 6.16. Iron machinery components located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289.
118

Figure 6.17. Rotary drum, scrubber, or trommel located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289.
Figure 6.18. Rotary drum with camshaft located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31ST289.
119

r
v
A
d�
5
%,..
_
f aNi
Figure 6.19. Component with revolving prongs located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289.
Figure 6.20. Component located in the vicinity of Structure 1 at 31 ST289.
120

6-- ill ,

fit
'40
JAI

Figure 6.27. Threaded iron pipe joint found at sluice location at 31ST289.
Twentieth century sources refer to the construction of a "small" washing plant at the Parker Mine that was
constructed in the early 1930s (Bryson 1936:20-21; Luttrell 1978). As described by Bryson (1936:20-21),
a washing plant had been constructed for sorting and processing, and included a "revolving drum or
disintegrator, sluice boxes, the necessary screens, and (an) electrical amalgamator." The ore "was mined
with drag, emptied on a grizzly, the coarse material piled for later grinding, and the fines shoveled by hand
into the disintegrator" (Bryson 1936:79-81). It is possible that Structure 1, the machinery parts, and the
apparent sluice box trench may represent the location of the 1930s washing plant. The actual location of
the washing plant, as well as any of the other structures described is not known with any certainty, however.
Surface Features. One hundred and seventeen surface features representing prospection and/or extraction
or other activities were recorded (Table 6.1; Figures 6.28-6.85). Most of these are located on the eastern -
facing slopes of the property, and most are located in the east half of the tract. These include open cuts or
gouges resulting from hydraulic mining, the byproduct of the use of pressurized water to expose and extract
the ores and gravels for further processing. Some of these exhibit a distinct (much deeper) portion, while
the remainder are much less distinct and presumably relate to the chute created by runoff until merging with
the natural stream headwater channel. Mine cuts that express this type of activity include mine cuts 1, 4,
and 5 on the west side, and 6, 7, 8, and 9 on the east side. Mine cuts 4, 5, 8, and 9 appear to result from the
same mining event/episode at the head of the drainage but are separated by the western access road (see
Figure 6.4). Mine cut 4 appears to be distinct from the surrounding lakeside borrow area, but it is possible
that construction of the lake destroyed some evidence of past mining.
124

Table 6.1. Summary of Surface Extraction and Other Features Identified at 31ST289.
Name/No.
Area
Type
Size m2
Comments
MP1
western
mine cut
137.93
MP2
western
mine cut
140.06
MP3
western
mine cut
21.30
MP4
western
mine cut
747.80
hydraulic gouge
MP5
western
mine cut
1215.34
hydraulic gouge
MP6
eastern
mine cut
1022.30
hydraulic gouge
MP7
eastern
mine cut
593.11
hydraulic gouge
MP8
eastern
mine cut
5278.89
hydraulic gouge
MP9
eastern
mine cut
2577.18
hydraulic gouge
MP 10
eastern
mine cut
121.82
MPH
eastern
mine cut
153.19
MP 12
eastern
mine cut
265.08
MP13
eastern
mine cut
36.28
MP14
eastern
mine cut
681.57
MP 15
eastern
mine cut
277.80
MP 16
eastern
mine cut
101.64
MP 17
eastern
mine cut
91.51
MP 18
northern
mine cut
71.19
UD portal
TR1
western
mine cut trench -shaped
97.98
TR2
western
mine cut trench -shaped
320.37
TR3
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
120.52
TR4
eastern
trench and sluice channel
366.22
washing plant?
TR5
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
251.00
TR6
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
9.42
TR7
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
12.29
TR8
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
2.06
TR9
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
14.24
TR10
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
21.54
TR11
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
410.21
TR12
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
177.00
TR13
eastern
mine cut trench -shaped
25.83
PPl
western
prospecting pit
5.22
PP2
eastern
prospecting pit
27.98
PP3
eastern
prospecting pit
52.41
PP4
eastern
prospecting pit
15.56
PP5
eastern
prospecting pit
21.35
PP6
eastern
prospecting pit
11.25
PP7
eastern
prospecting pit
14.97
PP8
eastern
prospecting pit
7.23
PP9
eastern
prospecting pit
8.13
PP11
eastern
prospecting pit
5.71
PP12
eastern
prospecting pit
36.50
PP13
eastern
prospecting pit
26.75
PP14
eastern
prospecting pit
20.23
PP15
eastern
prospecting pit
0.67
PP16
eastern
prospecting pit
15.22
PP17
eastern
prospecting pit
7.62
PP18
eastern
prospecting pit
7.78
PP19
eastern
prospecting pit
6.79
125

Table 6.1. Summary of Surface Extraction and Other Features Identified at 31ST289.
Name/No.
Area
Type
Size m2 Comments
PP20
eastern
prospecting pit
5.45
PP21
eastern
prospecting pit
20.28
PP22
eastern
prospecting pit
15.34
PP23
eastern
prospecting pit
223.00
PP24
eastern
prospecting pit
7.94
PP25
eastern
prospecting pit
3.08
PP26
eastern
prospecting pit
2.53
PP27
eastern
prospecting pit
20.38
PP28
eastern
prospecting pit
26.50
PP29
eastern
prospecting pit
21.00
PP30
eastern
prospecting pit
51.70
PP31
eastern
prospecting pit
6.25
PP32
eastern
prospecting pit
7.37
PP33
eastern
prospecting pit
3.80
PP34
eastern
prospecting pit
21.61
PP35
eastern
prospecting pit
12.50
PP36
eastern
prospecting pit
26.75
PP37
eastern
prospecting pit
16.70
PP38
eastern
prospecting pit
12.60
PP39
eastern
prospecting pit
12.17
PP40
eastern
prospecting pit
17.17
PP41
eastern
prospecting pit
12.72
PP42
eastern
prospecting pit
8.26
PP43
eastern
prospecting pit
7.82
PP44
eastern
prospecting pit
7.14
PP45
eastern
prospecting pit
6.41
PP46
eastern
prospecting pit
1.73
PP47
eastern
prospecting pit
4.79
PP48
eastern
prospecting pit
32.22
PP49
eastern
prospecting pit
1.02
PP50
eastern
prospecting pit
3.95
PP51
eastern
prospecting pit
5.13
PP52
eastern
prospecting pit
12.41
PP53
eastern
prospecting pit
20.83
PP54
eastern
prospecting pit
16.32
PP55
eastern
prospecting pit
6.87
PP56
eastern
prospecting pit
4.14
PP57
eastern
prospecting pit
5.03
PP58
eastern
prospecting pit
7.52
PP59
eastern
prospecting pit
6.12
PP60
eastern
prospecting pit
4.10
PP61
eastern
prospecting pit
2.18
PP62
eastern
prospecting pit
8.04
PP63
eastern
prospecting pit
17.13
PP64
eastern
prospecting pit
17.21
PP65
eastern
prospecting pit
5.36
PP66
eastern
prospecting pit
3.56
PP67
eastern
prospecting pit
2.54
PP68
eastern
prospecting pit
8.81
126

Table 6.1. Summary of Surface Extraction and Other Features Identified at 31ST289.
Name/No.
Area
Type
Size m2 Comments
PP69
eastern
prospecting pit
11.85
PP70
eastern
prospecting pit
6.86
PP71
western
prospecting pit
17.05
PP72
western
prospecting pit
10.13
PP73
western
prospecting pit
8.51
PP75
eastern
prospecting pit
10.33
PP76
western
prospecting pit
58.61
PP77
western
prospecting pit
16.96
PP78
western
prospecting pit
65.18
PP79
western
prospecting pit
2.34
PP80
northern
prospecting pit
49.07
PP81
northern
prospecting pit
53.99
PP82
northern
prospecting pit
13.84
PP83
northern
prospecting pit
33.03
PP84
northern
prospecting pit
25.31
PP85
northern
prospecting pit
4.10
PP86
northern
prospecting pit
22.94
Dam
eastern
concrete dam
N/A washing plant?
Structure 1
eastern
brick and mortar
22.30 washing plant?
Figure 6.28. Mine trench cut 1 in west half of 31ST289, facing north.
127

4 �r
77 -
Al-
W
.r ._.f 1 ��•.ir �� .c- b�^S. ��--..�w'$1\ : $ � �, ., :.1�:`.r�"9 .. 3a. d,+ • "s
r
lip
� � �3� i •:. .F 4w, r� � F

I" F
NO-

Figure 6.33. Scatter of quartzite cobbles associated with mine trench cut 2 at 31 ST289, facing
southwest.
b,
s
.,Seiiaptt 17LY� .� � �l
Figure 6.34. Mine trench cut 2 in west half of 31 ST289, facing southeast. (note modern refuse)
130

Figure 6.35. Shallow mine cut 3 in west half of 31 ST289, facing southeast.
Figure 6.36. Mine trench cut 4 in west half of 31 ST289, facing south.
131

ti
V i
- :rn_ tea- �' y_, .�. .__ .. �.. Si"•Y _ �. r

r

�pFX
Lk
%01
.•T 9 . _ 'k i i 1 J� ` d� Y�
i
Y
A
�--�'
r
;o. :r
....

•" h
:i'�►�oo
lie
Y R.
.• �r . ,,,,.�. it � ,• -
R ... . eu .. .f'1Sn� T:!"Sr1iAF•��V'�,I,'IF
_-
-....•�
���. ,mac
�
��
I
�,• 4�
s f

kk
a,
}-4
c
d �I fp 4
rr� � Y ij1°� e�4,.�E ti.t 7 � - rF- � r f � „s •�

a oz
77
I AN W

Figure 6.49. Mine cut 11 with associated spoil in east half of 31 ST289, facing south.
Figure 6.50. Mine cut 12 in east half of 31 ST289, facing west.
138

Figure 6.51. Mine cut 13 with standing water in east half of 31 ST289, facing west.
Figure 6.52. Mine cut 14 in east half of 31 ST289, facing west.
139

Figure 6.53. View from inside mine cut 14 in east half of 31 ST289, facing west. (note boulders)
Figure 6.54. Rock spoil field, east side of mine cut 14 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest.
140

y r
a
Nt
All
OW, r" r
1;
tal
Y

Figure 6.59. Mine trench 3 with prospecting pit 11 (in foreground) in east half of 31 ST289, facing
south.
Figure 6.60. Mine trench 5 in east half of 31 ST289, facing north.
143

_'!� '�r^.1 M r'-�.-• 'i'" t d Ktn�:r/ fJ j t�'Y yy�lA �yf 1. -.
�'� - vim- �� �4� ���`✓ ^ 4` (�.� _ J � ,�
'
";' l f +
fill
Vtl
-s i --
rF'S.�'�
V
i� _ � �J • J66''�it.-. +,. ri..: � i _ CAL.-� � . �� �� ... �-o- -� �•� � �i '.. � ��

�-�.�'� xr� y _ a'.�'� �y .ems . � '%- r.-��� �_ �- . •) ,.�.r '„ �i

1
� f
ks
,jg
F
7
�`' _ ✓ �2 �j �.�'� �fi' Y T' `,mil � E
iL
77
3
}may_ r
�zqt'�' `✓• � � - �. -

Figure 6.69. Large prospecting pit near modern building in northern section of 31 ST289, facing east.
Figure 6.70. Prospecting pits 3 and 4 on side slope in east half of 31 ST289, facing west.
148

+ � a
�• ��..� Vie. �.t. - '�'' � '� _ ..�� '�r �„
;.: 6
mm
1 q
4^ may.` � ,�' • :�� .. Y, c 1 •� .
-
" El
3eA �__A: vi
'-
Figure 6.71. Prospecting pit 5 in east half of 31 ST289, facing north.
J�
y,T �..'rf"E�i - r' k• ] ate
, s k
<
Y
r e
Figure 6.72. Prospecting pit 9 in east half of 31 ST289, facing northwest.
149

.s. : o
' t
71,
I r-i
_ .gam � '°`[��: ; �• $ �i ��, : ._ -
` �` ✓ � I t .. J — � �4 ..ly
Alba
lotC r
Ilk
4s
n �6
y 46�
_pd ...�_ Jtr i •+ R +�*.��.j 1[r' ' `§'_"� 'y-.- tea•-..
7 J
.'
�
Q41-
j

LIZ
Mv�
*01

e` E i2 1
1 �
wmw
1R'
rs�•K _ Y•

� I
,; �.. � q I
x � .c _ �` �' � a
��� � � ��
_�, .:
,, � .�
.:x.
1 ����� y �
_ �
,�"
� P t � � � O T
��,F�� v _
�;'
.� �L
.. �
� __ s-%x f1.�- 'fir. � �'�� _ �M
S y +�� T W - _ .tom I� }`�f-'_�_`. _. l _
�._ 'K,.�' _ _
-�- � �-r
., �..
. �
R .: -� _. .
_ ._ �., ..
I - ...
,.
x,
.__,
�s rf
i ".3
��, ��
.: �d �:� �
..�,�
yam. s. �1 .��' ` - ,.
V�
��� ��
� �
� �
� �
0 _ � �I �r,

I
V5 g-�, r 3` '•' ,yam__; -
!,. mar -• - r -
��1
71
t C _
k
. �l S a�.

jjj
n� F
j
r r
�:. -
� - � :gym. +rY „�
•3'F:, _
-
••
ate`
fi's�.. 0..�� R.
IDr.
-I , �- .

Figure 6.85. Canalized/incised central stream near prospecting pit 52 at 31 ST289, facing north.
Other large -sized cuts (like mine cuts 13 and 14) lack any evidence for a water outlet; these may be related
to hydraulic processing or some other kind of extraction method, such as dragging. Distinctly linear features
are also present (mainly in the east half, but also in the west half). These were differentiated from natural
gullies, which appeared related to natural landscape contours, although the latter may also result from
historic period deforestation and erosion. Prospecting trenches (linear excavations, as opposed to more
rounded pits) are also present and these vary in length and width. Some of these may have been excavated
by hand, while others may have been created with a drag. Finally, numerous smaller prospecting pits
(rounded or linear) are present. The definition of these is based on impressions of characteristics and by
understanding of the literature related to placer and other mining. These were typically more uniform than
any similar tree -throw.
Much of the two stream channels has been altered by mining activities, especially the easternmost branch.
Large stretches are artificially canalized, either intentionally to form a sluice or unintentionally as a sheer
byproduct of the rapid runoff created by hydraulic mining. In some places this deposition of waste rock
appears to have effectively dammed the main channel resulting in stream diversion and erosion of the banks
(effectively widening the channel, and destroying any associated first terrace that may have been
associated), where in others the stream bed is heavily incised, preventing terrace formation. Spoil piles of
varying size, including those mainly composed of waste rock, were encountered within and adjacent to
stream channels. Several studies have documented the long-term effects of gold mining on small streams
in the North Carolina and Georgia Piedmont, including those related to sediment discharge (Williams 1994)
or to cyanide or mercury traces found downstream (e.g., Hauser 2012; Leigh 1994; Oppenheim 1996;
Pavlowsky et al. 2010, Williams 1994, and others).
Waste rock piles and scatters are very evident across much of the property. These were distinguished from
the few natural outcrops present on the tract (most were closely associated with mine cuts or similar feature
156

clusters), but scattered cobbles were encountered widely throughout the investigated area, exposed by
pronounced historic erosion. These piles or loose mounds were associated with several of the larger mine
cuts, and most of the prospecting pits. Although associated piles were not explored internally, many of the
latter were composed of clayey soil and abundant pebble -sized rocks or gravels with a few small boulders
visible. Much of the observed displaced rock (ore) appears representative of eroded andesite or greenstone
or basaltic in appearance. Quartzite cobbles (but including some heavily veined quartz) are also represented.
In a few instances, displaced quartzite and quartz cobbles are the primary constituent of the spoil. Quartzite
occurs in a very extensive but loose scatter in the vicinity of mine cut trench 2 in the west half of the Project.
Mine tailings (as interpreted here, somewhat linear piles of rocks or gravels or other spoil, distinguished
from waste rock or spoil piles) resulting from processing were not readily evident, as these were either not
distinguishable from extraction spoil piles or were simply not recognized. No linear tailings (as from the
use of rockers, long toms, their numerous variants, or from sluices [Botwick 2012:48; CALTRANS
2008:83-84]) were encountered. In some, if not most, instances these may have been confined to the stream
bed and have since been obliterated by flood events.
According to Botwick (2012:48), tailings resulting from placer mining may be difficult to identify in the
Carolinas, due to their ephemeral nature and subsequent disturbance.
With the possible exception of two domestic cow (Bos taurus) longbones found at one of the larger
prospecting pits (mine cut 1, west half), no artifacts (other than clearly modern items) were found associated
with any of the mining features. No artifacts of Euro-American manufacture were found in shovel tests.
Scattered twentieth century artifacts (e.g., whole and fragmentary glass bottles, blue and clear glass canning
jars, ceramics [limited to stoneware and undecorated whiteware], buckets and cans, occasional enamelware)
were encountered at a few locations in the western part of the Project area (and all west of the main western
access road, where no mining features were encountered), but no artifacts were located in the east half, or
anywhere east of the western access road, or in proximity to any of the mining features, and none appears
directly attributable to mining activities or related discard. These were all small, dispersed scatters
attributable to single episodes of discard. Any on -site housing or other facilities for miners and their families
is not mentioned in any of the document sources that were examined.
With the exception of two large, iron fuel storage tanks in the west half of the Project (Figure 6.86), no
surface finds were considered ambiguously associated with mining activity or later disturbance. A threaded
iron pipe fragment appears associated with the apparent sluice network, and a number of artifacts appear
associated with the Structure 1 location. Most of the artifacts clearly post-date any historically significant
periods of the associated occupation.
Scattered trash dumps with mid- to late twentieth century artifacts (e.g., auto or truck related parts, tires,
plastic and metal oil cans, aerosol cans, paint cans, beverage cans) were found periodically along the
passable roads, especially along the main western and eastern access roads. Extensive spoil associated with
grading by heavy equipment is present at several places along both the main roads and many of the
abandoned road traces. In addition, demolition, or industrial related debris (twentieth century bricks and
cement slabs, an apparent coal ash dump) appear to have been deposited by truck. Much of the northern
part of the Project area has been cut well below grade (especially in the area around the lake, apparently a
source of borrow or mined fill).
It is not clear from the present work what type of mining activities have occurred on the property since
1970. The immense borrow pit that rings the lake (as well as, possibly, the obscured lakebed itself) may be
related to recent mining or extraction for borrow fill, however.
157

Figure 6.86. Iron fuel storage tanks, western area.
Discussion
The evaluation of historic -era mining properties in the United States has been discussed in numerous
publications (e.g., Botwick 2012; Bunyak 1998; CALTRANS 2000, 2008; Fell and Twitty 1992; Hardesty
1990a, 1990b; Noble and Spude 1997; Swope and Gregory 2017; Twitty and Fell n.d.). Previous
archaeological research conducted on North Carolina gold mines has been summarized elsewhere (Botwick
2012:67-72). These include limited investigations at the Reed Gold Mine in Cabarrus County (since
designated as a North Carolina Historic Site) (Botwick 2012:67), the Gardner Creek Gold Mine in Guilford
County (Hargrove 1992), the Long Creek Mine in Gaston County (Baker and Hall 1985; Botwick 2012:68-
69), two unidentified gold mine sites in Mecklenburg County (Botwick 2012: 69-70; Hargrove 1990), and
elements of the Black Cat Mine in Mecklenburg County (Ayers et al. 1993; Botwick 2012:70-71). A few
other gold mine features were recorded during surveys in Mecklenburg County (Bamann and Lautzenheiser
2000; Botwick 2012:71-72; Edwards 2001). In addition, the Coggins Gold Mine stamp mill in Montgomery
County was documented as a representative North Carolina stamp mill (Brenner 1977), but no
archaeological investigation was performed there. Several mining properties in North Carolina are part of
multiple properties nomination forms, like the Pioneer Mills Gold Mine in Cabarrus County (Huffman
1990).
As a property type (as defined by Hardesty and Little 2009:27), the Parker Gold Mine site is an excellent
example of a predominantly placer -type gold mine in the southern North Carolina Piedmont, with abundant
evidence for prospecting and extraction, some evidence for processing (beneficiation), and no evidence
(archaeological or otherwise) for refining (which appears to have never been conducted at the site) (see
Botwick 2012:47; CALTRANS 2008; Noble and Spude 1997:10). It contains some ancillary features such
as a sluice trace section (an example of water conveyance), an associated small dam, and a possible structure
location, in addition to an open cut that contains a horizontal portal (adit or shaft entrance) and a collapsed
headframe, in addition to other supporting elements.
158

In regard to Criterion A, the Parker Gold Mine is certainly associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of North Carolina and national history. It was one of the many
gold mines in the southern Piedmont and across much of the state that collectively represent the nation's
first "gold rush" and that operated subsequently, in some capacity, into the twentieth century. It is one of
20 such mines (of what must have been many more) documented in the county, and it appears to be one of
only a few in the state to be extensively investigated archaeologically.
The documented history of the mine suggests that it participated in many of the broad industry trends that
inform the history of gold mining in the Carolinas. As described by Botwick (2012:9-22), these are defined
broadly by periods of Discovery and Early Development, Expansion and Climax of the Gold Mining
Industry, and Revival and Decline. The earliest (and perhaps the most prosperous period) of mining
occurred well prior to the Civil War; during this time placer mining was predominant, and it is not clear to
what extent lode mining was attempted (if at all) during this time at the Parker Mine. This period of the
mine's history is known solely from contemporary newspaper articles and a few professional publications,
but is not readily identifiable in the archaeological record, mainly because earlier mining efforts, if
represented at all, are not dateable from surface appearances alone. Although some of the surface features
(particularly in the general class of prospecting pits) may result from antebellum mining, we lack the means
to differentiate these from later works (and in some instances the later attempts to sample placer deposits
may have destroyed some of the earlier attempts at placer mining).
It is not clear when lode mining was first attempted, but it is clear that it was attempted by 1895, and likely
by 1887/1888, if not much earlier. Knapp and Glass (1999:33) suggest that a vein of gold was found at the
Parker Mine in the 1840s, although it is not clear if this was identified by vertical works. One source
suggests that processing activities at the mine were limited to the use of rockers up to 1881, although this
does not mean that mining activity was not intensive or that the mine was not productive and profitable.
The Parker Mine appears typical of several county and regional mines (including many at which lode
mining was never attempted) in its focus on placer deposits. (In contrast, lode mining began at an extremely
early date—ca. 1824 at the Barringer Mine [Knapp and Glass 1999; LaPoint 1999; Roberts 1972].)
Late nineteenth century sources (mainly professional journals) describe the attempts at lode mining at the
Parker Mine that occurred at that time, along with continued surface mining. Infrastructure at this time
included a 10-stamp type stamp mill (which appears to have been identical to the mill used at the Reed
Mine) and its mill house, a wooden tower to support a standpipe (to ensure that water could be delivered
where it was required with the proper force necessary to break up or dislodge materials), a network of sluice
boxes, a magazine for powder and dynamite storage, and possibly a few other structures. None of these late
nineteenth century architectural features are identifiable archaeologically within the Project area.
This brief period in the last decade of the nineteenth century was followed by a ca. 30-year period of little
to no mining activity. Mining rebounded for a short time during the early 1930s, however, during which
time a "small washing plant" was constructed at the Parker Mine, and new processing technologies were
attempted to extract gold particles from the clayey matrix. Evidence for mining during this period is
equivocal, but limited structural remains (represented by brick and mortar that does not appear to be
redeposited), along with some non-agricultural machinery that resembles components of early twentieth
century mining equipment (of which it should be noted there is an abundance of variety and description),
other artifacts, and a dam situated downstream (which is associated with a network of trenches that appear,
at least in the part where they are lined with concrete piles and vertical iron beams, to accommodate a sluice
box system), may collectively relate to such a "plant."
The associated date of the open pit that contains a narrow, framed portal (adit or shaft) and a collapsed iron
headframe with a concrete base is unknown, although evidence (such as the wood pole wired for electricity)
suggests an early twentieth century origin (electricity was installed in New London in the early 1920s
159

[https://www.newlondonnc.org/history/], although it is possible that limited alternative sources were
available at some earlier time to some industries). It is also possible that the open cut was a later (early
twentieth century) attempt to access a seam that had been explored earlier (possibly in the late nineteenth
century) at the location.
Mining was not conducted on any great scale following WWII, although some form of activity occurred
during the 1970s and likely thereafter. It is during this time that most of the grading occurred on the property
and part of the area was used as a site of disposal for domestic and commercial or industrial refuse, mainly
along the existing access roads. It is not clear when the modern access roads were graded across the property
(they are heavily graded but are unimproved). These appear to post-date any period of significance for the
mining property, although it is possible that some of the older road traces, especially one that extends along
the easternmost branch and appears to cross it at one point, are associated with former mining activity.
In regard to Criterion B, the Parker Gold Mine is primarily associated with the Parker family, the
descendants of Howell Parker Sr., a Revolutionary War veteran who lived in what was then Montgomery
County and who died before gold was found on the property. Two of Howell Sr.'s sons (John Parker and
Howell Parker Jr.) were involved in the mining operation for some time before the Civil War. The Parker
family had some interest in the mine until it was sold in 1887, in part by Arnold Parker (son of Howell Jr.)
and his wife Lucinda Stokes Parker (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/54721077/amold-s-parker;
Stanly County Deed Book 16:562-564). Regardless of the importance of the Parker family individually or
collectively in the development of Stanly County or otherwise, the mining property today appears unlikely
to convey its association with that family, with the exception of the Parker Cemetery, which is located
immediately outside of the northern part of the Project area.
Criterion C refers to properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction; or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values; or that represent
a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Although it
displays many of the characteristics of a placer mine in the South, site 31 ST289 has no standing structures
or architectural elements attributable to pre -WWI mining, although this period is certainly represented
within a subset of the numerous extraction scars across the landscape. Engineering innovation occurred
throughout the nineteenth century and is very evident in descriptions of the mining in the last decade of that
century. This also transpired during the early twentieth century during the 1930s at the mine; although this
is not well represented on the property, there is some evidence of the use of evolved processing techniques
at the location of Structure 1 and the apparent sluice -box set-up located downstream of the structure
location.
No particular period of mining is represented with a high degree of clarity at the Parker Mine site, and this
appears typical of gold mines (and mines in general). Mines typically possess a palimpsest of overlapping
elements that represent altered focuses, technological changes, stages of progression and regression related
to the shifting demands for the mined material over time, and post -abandonment decay and vandalism
(Bunyak 1998:41; Hardesty 1990; Noble and Spude 1997). In short, mine sites are rarely if ever found
intact; unless situated in a remote location, they are vulnerable to post -abandonment intrusion and
vandalism (Bunyak 1998:41) and like other archaeological sites, modern development.
In the absence of any remnant architecture (such as the stamp mill house or foundations for the stamp mill
machinery) that can be directly tied to the nineteenth century descriptions, it is difficult to reconstruct the
mine works as they existed over time. Although such structures exist at some properties in the Carolinas,
they appear rare, and tying significance to standing structure remains may risk setting an unreasonably high
standard for significance. One of the problems with the Parker Mine is uncertainty about its extent,
complicated by its conflation under corporate ownership with at least three neighboring mines (Biles, Flint
Springs, Johnny Parker) under the Stanly Freehold concern and subsequent iterations. Beyond what was
160

documented archaeologically (an imperfect fit with the historic records), it is not clear which structures
were present on the Parker properties (as opposed to others that adjoined the Parker lands), much less the
Project area (although it is very possible that the mining evidence encountered within the Project area
represents the loci of the most intense activity). For example, any number of these could have been on the
adjacent Biles tract, as the overlap between Parker and Biles family properties and other properties in regard
to the Project area is not clear and would be difficult in our estimation to reconcile with modern mapping.
It is also probable that the number of structures or facilities on the mining property itself was very limited
throughout its history, and largely limited to those few that are described in contemporary publications.
There does not appear to have ever been any housing for miners on the property, and the mine's relationship
(economic and otherwise) with the surrounding community remains unclear. Clearly the mine drew on the
nearby population of Bilesville/New London and was to some extent responsible for the growth of that
community during the late nineteenth century.
Many of the important themes related to mining (as listed by Botwick 2012:85-88) do not seem to be
addressable by these data or relevant to the Parker Mine site, including remains of technology (Hardesty
1988, 2010), its byproducts, i.e., tailings (Botwick 2012:85; Quivik 2003, 2007), or mining settlements and
related concerns (Botwick 2012:85-86; Hardesty 1988). The Parker Mine site has not been evaluated in a
regional context in the manner defined by Botwick (Botwick 2012:86-87); such evaluation is restricted
here to the broad contexts or themes presented in this report (which is the only such evidence afforded by
these data).
Hardesty also suggests that representativeness and rarity are important considerations for mining sites under
Criterion C (Hardesty 1988:110, 1990:50). In regard to these considerations, the Parker Mine is not the first
of its kind (although it began very early in the nineteenth century). It is certainly not the last surviving mine
site that was mainly worked for its placer deposits, although direct comparisons with other similar sites are
beyond the immediate scope of this study. The Parker Gold Mine is, from all appearances, fairly typical of
mining and mining technologies that were employed regionally.
In regard to Criterion D, sites that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history, the Parker Mine site must be evaluated in regard to its particular context. Just as the
Parker Mine was (predominately) a surface mine, one that was largely mined with pre -twentieth century
technology, the Parker Mine as an archaeological site is represented by its surface evidence (including those
subsurface works visible from the surface). There are no significant subsurface deposits related to mining
excepting any in situ (and for now, hypothetical) evidence sealed within an underground tunnel. It is quite
likely that most mining activities were not amendable to archaeological identification.
No domestic artifact scatters were identified that are directly attributable to mining, especially considering
the accessibility of the area to nearby settlement and development. A few domestic artifacts (a whiteware
plate fragment and a headboard) were associated with Structure 1, which does not appear related to any
domestic habitation.
One obstacle in evaluating the Parker Mine site is the absence of identifiable tailings related to different
processing techniques. Identification of such features would facilitate the identification of the locations of
permanent or temporary facilities involved in processing the gold -bearing matrix. In contrast, rock piles,
which presumably represent extracted ore, are readily apparent. In some small way, this may suggest the
proportionality and types of extraction techniques that occurred at the mine compared to attempts to
efficiently process the extracted materials, which, other than the simplest of panning techniques and the use
of rockers, long toms, and other similar very traditional techniques, were simply not employed until the
twentieth century.
161

The Parker Mine (certainly along with others in the county and the region) still resonates locally as part of
the history of economic development in Stanly County, and the town of New London (formerly Bilesville),
in particular. It represents early to late nineteenth century industrial production in North Carolina as defined
by gold mining. It is one of several similar mines in Stanly County that have been reported in late nineteenth
to early twentieth century publications and contemporary sources, and one of several dozen that operated
in North Carolina during this time period. It's comparative economic viability (at least in regard to other
mines in Stanly and surrounding counties) has not been measured to our knowledge; it appears to have been
considered a very productive mine among several productive mines and attracted foreign investors in the
last part of the nineteenth century. The mine endured the boom -and -bust cycles that were emblematic of
the industry both state and nation-wide. (It remains somewhat notable in a historical sense that it retained
its original name, although other mines also accomplished that feat.) The Parker Gold Mine is to a great
degree represented by the destruction it has left behind, in the form of numerous mining related scars on
the natural terrain and in an artificially altered stream channel, in places still choked with mining spoil, and
a past conduit for massive amounts of displaced sediment that was (and likely still is) discharged
downstream.
Beyond these considerations for evaluating the Parker Mine as a site or particular property type, it may be
worth considering the significance of the Parker Mine site as an example of a rural historic landscape as
these are defined (Botwick 2012:61; McClelland and Keller 1999; Noble and Spude 1997). According to
Noble and Spude (1997), "landscapes may represent the most dramatic visual images of mining. Mining
landscapes evoke images of time, place, and historical patterns associated with past mining epochs,"
including "ravaged landscapes denuded by nineteenth century hydraulic mining..." (Noble and Spude
1997:13). They go on to note that most mining landscapes "will be defined as historic districts for the
purpose of National Register nomination" (Noble and Spude 1997:14).
Summary and Recommendations. The Parker Mine site (31 ST289) is an early nineteenth to twentieth
century mining property that retains abundant evidence of surface features related to mining, including
those attributable to late nineteenth century hydraulic mining methods. The Parker Mine (31 ST289) has
abundant evidence for prospecting and extraction, and limited evidence for processing or beneficiation.
Refining does not appear to have been conducted at the Parker Mine. It retains some evidence of sluicing
that may be related to a washing plant constructed and operated in the early 1930s. One open pit contains
an open portal associated with a remnant headframe and at least one ancillary feature, and appears to
represent early twentieth century use and abandonment. Although no standing structures or refuse deposits
attributable to the period of significance were encountered, the site retains the essential physical features
that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event,
historical pattern, or person(s) (NPS 1990).
TRC recommends that site 31 ST289 retains integrity sufficient to establish its significance under one of the
four NRHP criteria and is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A. It retains integrity in
regard to location, setting, feeling and association. The site does not appear to be eligible under Criteria B
or C. The mining property is unlikely to provide any significant or new information concerning mining in
the Carolinas beyond what was recorded during the present work and does not appear eligible under
Criterion D. Consequently, no further archaeological work is recommended.
162

7. The Parker Cemetery
31ST290
Component(s):
Postcontact: Parker Cemetery
Site Dimensions:
16.5 in N-S x 10.5 m E-W
UTMs (NAD 83):
E570324 N3922441
Landform:
Upland flat
Elevation:
696 ft AMSL
Soil Type(s):
Tarrus channery silty clay loam 2-8% slopes (TcB2)
Recommendation:
Unassessed (avoidance)
Description. Site 31 ST290 (designated ST0244 in NC HPO files) is a small, abandoned family cemetery
located on a rolling upland plain about 70 in south of Steakhouse Road (SR 1440) near its intersection with
NC 52 and west of the access road that leads into the mine tract (Figures 7.1-7.7; see Figure 5.5). The
cemetery is in a wooded area east of an agricultural field and contains some original but illegible markers;
an inscribed concrete monument appears to have been added later. Oriented with its long axis northeast -
southwest, the cemetery measures from about 52 to 56 ft north -south and 32 to 37 ft east -west,
encompassing an area of ca. 1,863 W. The cemetery is not enclosed, but its visible boundaries are marked
by widely spaced, planted shrubs. A few large cedar trees (and cedar stumps representing similar -aged
growth) are present within and near the cemetery limits. The cemetery is currently maintained (i.e., the
cemetery has been cleared of brush and minor undergrowth has been trimmed) and at the time of the present
visit, a small U.S. flag had been placed on the monument's north side.
Map Depictions and Previous Visits. The cemetery is not depicted on the 1904 county map (Miller 1904),
the 1916 county soils map (Jurney 1916), or the earliest large-scale USGS topographic map (USGS 1980)
(see Chapter 5, this report). The cemetery is referred to as the "old Parker family burying ground" in an
1887 deed, in which it was stipulated that one acre of a 540-acre tract be set aside for the sole purpose of
maintaining the existing cemetery (Stanly County Deed Book 16:562-564).
The cemetery was recorded as the Parker Family Cemetery in 1940 by Charlie M. Dry during a county
cemetery survey (WPA 1940). The cemetery's location is described as `/2 mile across the railroad from the
town of New London, near #52," and was listed in "bad" condition. Eleven individuals are listed along with
a partial list of birth and death dates. Although the names match those recorded during the present work
(see below), the associated birth and death dates are reversed in the 1940 document. It is not clear where
the information in the 1940 report was obtained, i.e., if these were obtained from the same monument that
is now present (and were presumably transcribed incorrectly) or if other sources were utilized at that time.
A separate cemetery, recorded as "Parker Cemetery (Negro)" was also visited in 1940 (WPA 1940); the
description corresponds with a larger cemetery located about 0.5 km west of 31 ST290 near Blalock Road;
that cemetery contains a few late nineteenth century graves in addition to modern interments and may still
be in use.
One online resource lists the cemetery as the Howell Parker Family Cemetery or Parker Graveyard, and
notes that additional unmarked interments are present, as indicated by depressions and plain stone markers
(https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/2517438/howell-parker-family-cemetery). The cemetery and the
monument are mentioned in a 1955 Stanly News and Press article by Mrs. G.B.D. Reynolds, which
describes the cemetery as neglected and overgrown (Parker 2001). It is clear that the cemetery location is
known to various local or other individuals, and likely to members of the Parker family.
163

Figure 7.1. Parker Cemetery, facing south.
Figure 7.2. Parker Cemetery, facing north.
164

@� �+..; ��A
66
Rim
s."..r:

0

Figure 7.7. Map of Parker Cemetery.
167

2021 Visit. The cemetery was revisited by TRC archaeologists on July 6 and 11, 2021. Documentation
included recording individual markers (headstones and footstones, and the inscribed monument),
discernable depressions, natural and artificial features of the landscape, and the visible cemetery boundaries
using a GPS receiver, and photo -documentation. Notes were made concerning general site conditions, and
the visible boundaries were measured using a tape. The cemetery was not delineated by probing or
geophysical methods, but no obvious unmarked interments are present. At the conclusion of the
investigation, the visible boundaries were marked with orange pin flags.
The Project visit identified five interments marked by granitic or slate headstones and smaller footstones
oriented west to east. Only some of these marked graves have corresponding depressions. All of the markers
are of similar material, are badly spalled, and do not bear any inscriptions. Depressions visible within the
cemetery limits (from three to five depressions in addition to those that are marked) outnumber the grave
markers, and two similar depressions appear immediately south of the monument (and are slightly south of
the loose border formed by the planted shrubs). With that exception, there were no obvious unmarked
interments outside of the boundary as suggested by the presence of planted shrubs.
In addition to the few surviving grave markers, an inscribed four-sided monument is located near the
southern boundary of the cemetery; this resembles granite or a granitic stone in appearance but appears to
be made of concrete, and the monument rests on a roughly finished concrete slab. The monument clearly
post-dates the other grave markers and its origin is unknown (but it was present by 1955, if not long before,
as indicated above). It may have been placed there by the local chapter of the Daughters of the American
Revolution (DAR).
The inscriptions on the monument are legible, and no rubbings or other attempts to augment inscription
visibility were made. Monument inscriptions were present on the north, south, and west sides of the
monument, and are transcribed as follows:
(South side)
Howell Parker
Born 5' mo. 1757
Elizabeth Parker
Born Oct. 15, 1756
(North side)
William Parker
Born Oct. 23, 1781
Died Jan. 25, 1872
Aged 90 y's, 3 m's.
Mary
Wife of William Parker
Born July 27, 1785
Died June 27, 1832
Aged 51 y's, I m's
(West side)
Drury Parker
Born Oct. 18, 1783
James Parker
Born Mar. 6, 1785
168

Elizabeth Parker
Born Oct. 15, 1786
Nancy Parker
Born Sept. 13, 1788
Pattie Parker
Born May 5, 1790
Howell Parker
Born May 20, 1792
John Parker
Born June 7, 1794
All passed away but not forgotten...
The east side of the monument is not inscribed but displays an elaborate floral motif at the top (see Figure
7.6). The date of the last interment at the cemetery is not known; the monument suggests that the last
interment was that of William Parker in 1872.
According to a genealogy website (https://www.geni.com/people/Howell-Parker-
Sr/6000000002285503819), Howell Parker Sr.:
... a fifth generation American, was a patriot in the War of Independence (1775-1783) from
England. He was born in Southampton County, Virginia, located east of Norfolk, adjoining North
Carolina to the south, a son of Drury Parker (ca. 1723-1789) and Elizabeth Barham (died before
1769).
In his young manhood, Howell migrated south to that section of Montgomery County, North
Carolina, that in 1841 became Stanly County. Here he acquired land near the present town of New
London; farming became his principal occupation. The deed to the property, known to the present
time as the Parker Gold Mine, indicates Howell Parker purchased it in 1778 from Edward Moore of
Anson County, a year prior to the forming of Montgomery from Anson County. It was originally a
patent bearing the date "the 22nd day of January, in the thirteenth year of the reign of King George,
the third, 1773," and it is described as being on the dividing ridge between the Long Branch of
Rocky River and Harry's Creek of the Yadkin River.
From 1777 to 1782, Howell Parker served as a private in the North Carolina Continental Line,
Salisbury District, Montgomery County Troops. Records show that he was actively engaged
throughout his period of enlistment, first against the Tories, under the leadership of loyalist David
Fanning, who were recruiting men between Hillsborough, the county seat of Orange County, N.C.,
and the Yadkin River. Later, he was stationed at Wilmington, N.C., to defend the town and harbor
from the British. Tradition has it that when Wilmington was under the command of Major Craig,
Howell was held prisoner on a ship in nearby waters. Presumably, after his release or exchange by
the British, he was given a furlough to go home when he learned of the birth of his son William.
The late Mrs. G.D.B. Reynolds (Elizabeth Parker) of Albemarle, a great -great granddaughter of
Howell Parker and leader in the North Carolina DAR and Colonial Dames XVII Century, recorded
the following account relative to the above -mentioned furlough. "An incident occurred during this
stay at his home, which has been told and retold to each generation of Howell Parker's descendants
and, without question or denial, has been accepted as true under the statement of a North Carolina
historian — `A statement that has never been doubted, doesn't need to be proven.' So the story still
holds that Howell Parker was confronted on the main road near his home by Colonel David Fanning
and his band of Tories, and halted. He was asked his name and how he sided, with or against the
king. Parker squared his shoulders and said, `I am a Patriot, sir,' whereupon Fanning asked him to
turn his back [for a firing squad], but the answer came back, `A Parker never turns his back to an
enemy.' Instead of ordering his men to shoot, all put spurs to their horses and galloped away,
169

thinking they were too near a band of Patriots! The story has been permanently preserved in the
records of the National Daughters of the American Revolution in the naming of a local chapter of
the organization the Yadkin River Patriots Chapter."
In 1780, twenty -three -year -old Howell Parker married twenty -four -year -old Elizabeth Loftin
(1756-1831), a daughter of Leonard Loftin, Jr. and Sarah Martin, in Montgomery County. They
became the parents of eight children, five boys and three girls, as follows: (1) William Parker
(10/23/1781-1872) m. Mary "Polly" Atkins and remained at New London. He later served as
register of deeds for the county; (2) Drury Parker (born 10/18/1783) m. Susan Boggs and they moved
to Franklin County, Alabama; (3) James Parker (born 3/6/1785) m. Maholie Costner and remained
at New London; (4) Elizabeth Parker (born 10/15/1786) m. George Hodge and they moved to
Franklin County, Alabama; (5) Nancy Parker (born 9/15/1788) m. Lee Hearne and they moved to
Franklin County, Alabama; (6) Pattie Parker (born 5/5/1789) m. George Hearne and they moved to
Franklin County, Alabama; (7) Howell Parker, Jr. (5/20/1792-4/21/1859) m. Nancy Newbole and
remained at New London; (8) John Parker (born 6/12/1794) m. Vassey Calloway and remained at
New London.
Howell Parker, the patriot, died in old Montgomery County (later became Stanly) on October 18,
1796, at age 39. His wife, Elizabeth Loftin Parker, died 35 years later, on July 17, 1831, at age 54.
They and several members of their family are buried in the family graveyard located on his farm
property. Today there is a marble shaft in the center of the plot, a four-sided design about six feet
high with inscription on three sides, including the names and birth dates of their children.
(Contributed by Robert Allison Ragan, a descendant, February 12, 2016).
Summary and Recommendations. Site 31 ST290, the Parker Cemetery, is an abandoned cemetery with clear
and patterned grave depressions and some associated in situ stone markers. A concrete monument indicates
interments during the late eighteenth up to the late nineteenth centuries and associations with the Howell
Parker family. The cemetery is situated in a rural, wooded area and is currently maintained by unknown
individuals. Its discernable boundaries are entirely outside the project area, and it is not currently affected
by any ongoing land use. The NRHP status of 31 ST290 has not been assessed as part of this project; like
other cemeteries, it is protected by a variety of North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.), including G.S. 14-
148 (Defacing or Desecrating Grave Sites), 14-149 (Desecrating, Plowing over or Covering up Graves;
Desecrating Human Remains), Chapter 65, Article 12, Part 4 (Removal of Graves), and Chapter 70, Article
3 (The Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act).
Site 31 ST290 is situated entirely outside of the Project area and will not be affected by the proposed project.
The NC HPO/OSA has requested that the cemetery be protected by a permanent 10 m (32.8 ft.) buffer
around the boundary and that it be mapped by a licensed surveyor, recorded on deeds or plats, and filed
with the county (Gledhill -Earley 2021).
170

8. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRC has completed an archaeological survey for the New London Mine project and an NRHP evaluation
of the Parker Gold Mine site in Stanly County, North Carolina. In addition to that work, a small family
cemetery situated immediately outside of the Project (the Parker Cemetery) was recorded. The work was
conducted on behalf of Boulder Associates, LLC as part of the permitting requirements for proposed mining
activities and took place in accordance with TRC's technical proposal for the Project. The Project area
encompasses about 293 acres on an irregularly shaped tract located southwest of New London and west of
NC 52, which includes broad Piedmont ridges and associated slopes dissected by two small tributaries of
Town Creek. The Project area is bounded to the north by Steakhouse Road (SR 1440) and privately owned
parcels, to the east by the Norfolk Southern tracks and private and commercial properties, and by privately
owned parcels to the south and west. NC HPO/OSA files indicated that the Project area contains one
previously recorded historic property (the Parker Gold Mine, NC HPO resource ST0245), an early
nineteenth to late twentieth century mine. In addition, a small, late eighteenth to late nineteenth century
family cemetery (the Parker cemetery, NC HPO resource ST0244) is situated immediately outside of the
Project area. The Parker Gold Mine and the Parker family cemetery were recorded as archaeological sites
as part of the survey.
The archaeological fieldwork was directed by Bruce Idol of TRC, occurred from July 6-28, 2021, and
required approximately 41.5 person -days. The fieldwork included a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of
the entire tract and systematic shovel testing at 30-m intervals across all parts of the Project area except for
areas of greater than 10% slope, wetland, or areas of substantial and visible disturbance; supplemental shovel
tests were excavated at 15-m intervals to delineate finds. A total of 1,003 shovel tests were excavated as part
of the Project. The evaluation of the Parker Gold Mine included close interval surface inspection (including
sloped areas), mapping of identifiable surface features, and document research.
The survey identified 17 archaeological sites (31 ST273-31 ST289), including the Parker Gold Mine site
(31 ST289, recorded in NC HPO files as ST0245), and one additional site situated immediately adjacent to
the Project area (31ST290, the Parker Cemetery, recorded in NC HPO files as ST0244) (Table 8.1).
The Parker Gold Mine (site 31 ST289 and HPO resource ST0245), an early nineteenth to late twentieth
century gold mine, is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, due to its association with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (USDOI 1991). It is
represented within the Project area by a number of subsurface cuts and gouges related to surface mining
extraction, a remnant trench system that appears to represent a reinforced sluice box network associated
with a concrete dam, and an apparent razed structure associated with outlying iron machinery components
that appear attributable to early twentieth century mining activities. In addition, an open mine cut containing
a narrow, framed portal, a remnant iron headframe, and ancillary infrastructure is present immediately
outside of the Project area.
When evaluated under the NRHP definition of those attributes of significance necessary to be listed as a
mining property, the Parker Gold Mine site appears to retain integrity sufficient to meet the NRHP
requirements for significance under Criterion A, and consequently is recommended eligible for listing in
the NRHP. The site does not appear to meet the thresholds of significance for eligibility under Criteria B,
C, or D, however. The site does not appear to have the potential to generate any new or significant
archaeological information.
The NRHP status of 31 ST290, the Parker Cemetery (HPO resource ST0244), is considered unassessed, and
avoidance during construction is recommended. The cemetery was documented as part of the Project but is
outside of the Project area. The perimeter of the cemetery (as identified visually) was marked with orange-
171

tipped pin flags and it will be surrounded by a permanent buffer of at least 10 in (ca. 33 ft). Like other
cemeteries, it is protected by a variety of North Carolina General Statutes (G.S.), including G.S. 14-148
(Defacing or Desecrating Grave Sites), 14-149 (Desecrating, Plowing over or Covering up Graves;
Desecrating Human Remains), Chapter 65, Article 12, Part 4 (Removal of Graves), and Chapter 70, Article
3 (The Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act). No evidence of unrecorded
cemeteries was found within the Project area.
The other 16 sites (31 ST273-31 ST288) are dispersed, low -density lithic scatters or isolated lithic artifact
finds that contain potential Early Woodland (31 ST273) or nondiagnostic lithic (31 ST274-31 ST288)
components. These sites appear to lack research potential and are recommended not eligible for the NRHP
(under all four criteria) as expressed within the Project area. No further archaeological investigations are
recommended at these sites for the Project as currently defined.
Providing that NC SHPO concurs with the recommendations and providing that 31 ST290 (the Parker
Cemetery) is avoided by all construction activities and protected by an appropriate buffer, no further
archaeological investigations are recommended for the New London Mine project as presently defined.
Table 8.1. Archaeological Sites Identified by the Survey.
Site Component Recommendation
31 ST273 Precontact: Early Woodland? Not NRHP eligible
31 ST274 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST275 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST276 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST277 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST278 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST279 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST280 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST281 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST282 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST283 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST284 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST285 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST286 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST287 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST288 Precontact: nondiagnostic lithic Not NRHP eligible
31 ST289 Postcontact: Parker Gold Mine (HPO ST0245) Eligible (Criterion A)
31 ST290 Postcontact: Parker Cemetery (HPO ST0244) Unassessed /Avoidance
172

REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55:348-354.
Adovasio, J.M., D. Pedler, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1999 No Vestige of a Beginning nor Prospect for an End: Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft
Rockshelter. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First
Americans, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K.L. Turmire, pp. 416-431. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
1983 Ten -Stamp Mill, Reed Gold Mine, Stanfield, North Carolina. Regional Historic Engineering Landmark,
Piedmont -Carolina Section, The American society of Mechanical Engineers.
Anderson, David G.
1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States.
In Research in Economic Anthropology, edited by JAI Press Inc., pp. 163-216, Supplement 5. Greenwich,
Connecticut.
1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In Archaeology of the
Mid -Holocene Southeast, edited by Ken Sassaman and David G. Anderson, pp. 157-176. University Press
of Florida.
Anderson, David G., and Christopher Gillam
2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography,
Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65:43-66.
Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
2012 Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology: From Colonization to Complexity. SAA Press,
Washington, D.C.
Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River
Valley. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Aschmann, Homer
1970 The Natural History of a Mine. Economic Geography 46(2):171-190.
Averill, Charles V.
1946 Placer Mining for Gold in California. State of California Division of Mines Bulletin 135, Sacramento.
Ayers, Harvard G.
1989 An Archaeological Survey of the North Stanly Sewer Project, Stanly County, North Carolina.
Appalachian State University, Boone. Submitted to Willis Engineers, Charlotte.
Ayers, Harvard G., Davyd Foard Hood, John Callahan, and Larry Kimball
1993 An Archaeological Survey of the North Mecklenburg Quarry, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Prepared for Vulcan Materials Company, Winston Salem, North Carolina.
Baker, Michael C., and Linda G. Hall
1985 An Archaeological Evaluation of Three Proposed Alternate Sites for the Gastonia Municipal Airport.
Prepared for Delta Associates, P.E., Inc., Richmond, Virginia. Asheville, North Carolina.
Bamann, Susan E., and Loretta Lautzenheiser.
2000 Archaeological Survey, Proposed Sewer Line, Coffey Creek Tributary to Shopton Road, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina. Submitted to Law
Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site
Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina
Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by A. Goodyear and G. Hanson, pp. 53-71.
Anthropology Studies No. 9. Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of Archeology and
Anthropology, Columbia.
Botwick, Brad
2012 Gold Mining in the Carolinas: A Context for Archaeological Resources Management. New South
Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.
173

Boudreaux, Edmond A.
2005 The Archaeology of Town Creek: Chronology, Community Patterns and Leadership at a Mississippian
Town. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill.
2007 A Mississippian Ceramic Chronology for the Town Creek Region. North Carolina Archaeology 56:1-
57.
Brenner, James T.
1977 Historic American Building Record, Rich -Cog (Coggins) Gold Stamp Mill, Montgomery County,
North Carolina. Historic American Engineering Record on file at Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Electronic document, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.httnl, accessed July 13, 2011.
Brown, Mrs. Douglas Summers
1966 The Catawba Indians: People of the River. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
Bryson, Herman J.
1936 Gold Deposits in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development,
Bulletin No. 38, Raleigh.
Bunyak, Dawn
1998 Frothers, Bubbles and Flotation: A Survey of Flotation Milling in the Twentieth -Century Metals
Industry. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Intermountain Support Office,
Denver, Colorado.
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures.
JRP Historical Consulting Services, Davis, California, and Environmental Program/Cultural Studies Office,
California Department of Transportation, Sacramento. 2008 A Historic Context and Archaeological
Research Design for Mining Properties in California. Division of Environmental Analysis, California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
2008 A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Mining Properties in California.
Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.
Carolina Watchman
1838 Extract of a letter, Dr. B. Austin, Senior Editor of the "Western Carolinian," dated Lawrenceville, July
5, 1838. July 27, 1838. Salisbury, North Carolina.
1846a Gold Mine for Sale. October 9, 1846. Salisbury, North Carolina.
1846b Gold Mine for Sale. October 16, 1846. Salisbury, North Carolina.
1881a Parker Gold Mine. March 10, 1881. Salisbury, North Carolina.
1881b Mining Intelligence... November 24, 1881. Salisbury, North Carolina.
1887 Something Immense. June 16, 1887. Salisbury, North Carolina.
1891a The Parker Mines. August 13, 1891. Salisbury, North Carolina.
1891b Mining News Gathered.... October 8, 1891. Salisbury, North Carolina.
Carpenter, P. Albert, III
1993 Gold in North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey Information Circular 29. Second reprinting
1999. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Division of Land Resources, Raleigh.
Chapman, Jefferson
1981 The Bacon Bend and Iddins Sites: The Late Archaic Period in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley.
Report of Investigations No. 31. University of Tennessee Department of Anthropology, Knoxville.
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge -and -Valley Province. In Structure and
Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211.
University of Alabama Press.
Charlotte News
1890 Of Interest About the State... March 8, 1890. Charlotte, North Carolina.
Claflin, William H., Jr.
1931 The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 14, No. 41, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Claggett, Stephen R.
1982 Description of Cultural Features. In The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two
Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont, assembled by. Stephen R. Claggett and John S. Cable, pp.
223-266. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
174

Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable (assemblers)
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina
Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina.
Coe, Joffre L.
1936 Keyauwee Exploration. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of North Carolina 1:13-14.
1937 Keyauwee— A Preliminary Statement. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of North Carolina 1:8-16.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the North Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern United States,
edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
54(5). Philadelphia.
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Conley, James F.
1962 Geology of the Albemarle Quadrangle, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Conservation
and Development, Raleigh.
Cowan, C. Wesley
1985 Understanding the Evolution of Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America: Lessons from Botany,
Ethnography, and Archaeology. In Precontact Food Production in North America, edited by Richard 1.
Ford, pp. 205-243. Anthropological Papers No. 75. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
Cranford, David
2018 Catawba Household Variation in the Late Eighteenth Century. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Crumbley, Tony L. (editor)
2005 Stanly County: Nature's Wonders Driving the Local Economy and Creating a Plentiful Postal History.
North Carolina Postal Historian 24(1):3-5.
Daniel, I.R., Jr.
1998 Hardaway Revisited. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
2000 Paleoindian Points in North Carolina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 17:14-16.
2005 The North Carolina Fluted Point Survey. Electronic document, http://pidba.utk.edu/northcarolina.html.
Davis, R.P. Stephen, Jr., Patrick C. Livingood, H. Trawick Ward, and Vincas P. Steponaitis (editors)
1998 Excavating Occaneechi Town: Archaeology of an Eighteenth -Century Indian Village in North
Carolina. CD-ROM. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Davis, R.P. Stephen, Jr., and Brett H. Riggs
2004 An Introduction to the Catawba Project. North Carolina Archaeology 53:1-41.
Davis, R.P. Stephen, Jr., Brett H. Riggs, and David J. Cranford
2015 Archaeology at Ayers Town: An Early Federal Period Community in the Catawba Nation. Research
Report 37, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Report
prepared for Mulkey Engineers & Consultants and the South Carolina Department of Transportation.
Davis, R.P. Stephen, Jr., and H. Trawick Ward
1991 The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 10:40-
53.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In Pollen Records
of Late -Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V.M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway, pp. 1-37.
American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered. Quaternary Research
19:265-271.
Dickens, Roy S.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
Dixon, E. James
1999 Boats, Bones, and Bison: Archeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
175

2001 Human Colonization of the American: Timing, Technology and Process. Quaternary Science Reviews
20:277-299.
Doerschuk, H.M.
1954 31ST13. North Carolina State Site Forms. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Driskell, Boyce N.
1996 Stratified Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Deposits at Dust Cave, Northwestern Alabama. In The
Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp.
315-330. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Dunbar, J.S.
2002 Chronostratigraphy and Paleoclimate of Late Pleistocene Florida and the Implications of Changing
Paleoindian Land Use. M.S. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
2006 Paleoindian Archaeology. In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the
Aucilla River, edited by S.D. Webb, pp. 403-435. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Eastman, Jane M.
1999 The Sara and Dan River Peoples: Siouan Communities in North Carolina's Interior Piedmont from
A.D. 1000 to 1700. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Edwards, Briece R.
2001 An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Force Main Corridor (2.7 Miles) Along Beaverdam Creek,
Tributary, and Dixie River Road, Shopton Vicinity, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Cultural
Resources Assessment Group, LLC, Raleigh, North Carolina. Submitted to Brown & Caldwell
Engineering, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Emmons, Ebenezer
1856 Geological Report of the Midland Counties of North Carolina. George P. Putnam & Co., New York.
Henry D. Turner, Raleigh.
Engineering and Mining Journal (EMJ)
1887 January to June 1887. Engineering and Mining Journal, edited by Richard F. Rothwell and Rossiter
W. Raymond, Volume 43, page 516. Scientific Publishing Company, New York.
1890 April 1890. Engineering and Mining Journal, edited by Richard F. Rothwell and Rossiter W.
Raymond, Volume 49 (No. 15), page 431. Scientific Publishing Company, New York.
Erlandson, Jon M, Todd J. Braje, Torbin C. Rick, and Jenna Peterson
2005 Beads, Bifaces, and Boats: An Early Maritime Adaptation on the South Coast of San Miguel Island,
California. American Anthropologist 107(4):677-683.
Faught, Michael K.
2008 Archaeological Roots of Human Diversity in the New World: A Compilation of Accurate and Precise
Radiocarbon Ages from Earliest Sites. American Antiquity 73:670-698.
Fell, James E., and Eric Twitty
2008 Multiple Properties Nomination Form: The Mining Industry in Colorado. Colorado Historical Society,
submitted to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Fiedel, Stuart
2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of
Archaeological Research 8:39-103.
Fitts, Mary Elizabeth
2006 Mapping Catawba Coalescence. North Carolina Archaeology 55:1-59.
2015 Defending and Provisioning the Catawba Nation: An Archaeology of the Mid -Eighteenth -Century
Communities at Nation Ford. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Fitts, Mary Elizabeth, Brett H. Riggs, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
2007 Summary Report of 2007 Archaeological Investigations at Catawba Nassaw Town (38YK434), York
County, South Carolina. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Research Laboratories of
Archaeology, Research Report 27.
Fitzpatrick, Thomas Frank
1983 Gold -Quartz Vein Mineralization in Stanly County, North Carolina. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Fladmark, Knut
1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. American Antiquity 44:55-69.
176

Ford, Richard I.
1981 Gathering and Farming Before A.D. 1000: Patterns of Precontact Cultivation North of Mexico. Journal
of Ethnobiology 1:6-27.
Glassow, Michael A.
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 42:413-420.
Gledhill -Earley, Renee
2021 Letter to Brenda Harris, Mining Program Secretary, May 11, 2021.
Goldsboro Headlight
1895 News from Everywhere. October 24, 1895. Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 47:382-395.
Goodyear, Albert C., and K. Steffy
2003 Evidence for a Clovis Occupation at the Topper Site, 38AL23, Allendale County, South Carolina.
Current Research in the Pleistocene 20:23-25.
Green, Fletcher Melvin
1937 Gold Mining: A Forgotten Industry of Antebellum North Carolina. The North Carolina Historical
Review 14 (1):1-19. North Carolina Office of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Griffith, Glenn, James Omemik, and Jeffery Comstock
2002 Ecoregions of North Carolina: Regional Descriptions. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. Electronic document,
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ncsc_eco.htm, accessed 8 October 2015.
Hardesty, Donald L.
1988 The Archaeology of Mining and Miners: A View from the Silver State. Special Publication Series No.
6. Society for Historical Archaeology, Pleasant Hill, California.
1990a Mining Property Types: Inventory and Significance Evaluation. In Death Valley to Deadwood;
Kennecott to Cripple Creek, edited by Leo R. Barker and Ann E. Huston, pp. 39-43. Proceedings of the
1989 Historic Mining Conference, January 23-27, 1989, Death Valley National Monument. U.S.
Department of the Interior National Park Service, Western Regional Office, Division of National Register
Programs, San Francisco.
1990b Evaluating Site Significance in Historical Mining Districts. Historical Archaeology 24(2):42-51.
2010 Mining Archaeology in the American West: A View from the Silver State. Society for Historical
Archaeology and University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Hardesty, Donald L., and Barbara J. Little
2009 Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians. 2nd ed. A1taMira Press,
Lanham, Maryland.
Hargrove, Thomas H.
1992 An Archaeological Investigation of the Gardner Hill Mine Site (31 GF328). Greensboro/Jamestown
Vicinity, Guilford County, North Carolina. Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc., Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Hauser, Jason Linwood
2012 Agrarianism, Industry, the Environment, and Change: Gold Mining in Antebellum North Carolina,
1799-1860. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of History, Appalachian State University, Boone, North
Carolina.
Haynes, C. Vance, Jr.
1966 Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American 214:104-112.
1969 The Earliest Americans. Science 166:709-715.
1971 Time, Environment and Early Man. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):3-14.
Hazel, Forest
1991 Occaneechi-Saponi Descendants in the North Carolina Piedmont: the Texas Community. Southern
Indian Studies 40:3-29.
Hemmings, C.A.
1999 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Tools of Sloth Hole 8JE121: An Inundated Site in the Lower
Aucilla River, Jefferson County, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
177

2004 The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent -Wide Cultural Adaptation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Hines, Elizabeth and Michael Smith
2002 Gold is Where you Find It: Placer Mining in North Carolina, 1799-1849. Earth Sciences History
21(2):119-149.
2006 The Rush Started Here I1: Hard Rock Gold Mining in North Carolina, 1825-1864. Earth Sciences
History: Journal of the History of the Earth Sciences Society 25(1):37-74.
Hoffecker, John F., W. Roger Powers, and Ted Goebel
1993 The Colonization of Beringia and the Peopling of the New World. Science 259:46-53.
Howell Charles D., and Donald C. Dearborn
1953 The Excavation of an Indian Village on the Yadkin River Near Trading Ford. Southern Indian Studies
5:3-12.
Hudson, Charles M.
1970 The Catawba Nation. University of Georgia Monographs, No. 18. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Huffinan, William H.
1990 Robert Harvey Morrison Farm and Pioneer Mills Gold Mine National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form. One file, North Carolina Division of Historic Resources, Raleigh.
International Textbook Company (ITC)
1900 A Textbook on Mining Engineering: Preliminary Operations at Metal Mines: Metal Mining Surface
Arrangements at Metal Mines Ore Dressing and Milling with Practical Questions and Examples.
International Correspondence Schools, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Burr Printing House, New York.
Jumey, R.C., and S.O. Perkins
1916 Soil Survey of Stanly County, North Carolina. United States Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Kerr, W.C., and Geo. B. Hanna
1893 Ores of North Carolina: Being Chapter 2 of the Second Volume of the Geological of North Carolina.
Edwards & Broughton, Raleigh.
Kimball, Larry R.
1985 The 1977 Archaeological Survey: an Overall Assessment of the Archaeological Resources of Tellico
Reservoir. Publications in Anthropology 39. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris.
Kirchen, Roger W.
2001 The E. Davis Site: Technological Change at the Archaic -Woodland Transition. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Knapp, Richard F.
1975 Golden Promise in the Piedmont: The Story of John Reed's Mine. North Carolina Historical Review
52 (1).
Knapp, Richard F., and Brent D. Glass
1999 Gold Mining in North Carolina: A Bicentennial History. North Carolina Office of Archives and
History, Raleigh.
Kneberg, Madeline
1959 Engraved Shell Gorgets and Their Associations. Tennessee Archaeologist 15(1):1-39.
Koschmann, A.H., and M.H. Bergendahl
1968 Principal Gold -Producing Districts of the United States. Geological Survey Professional Paper 610,
United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Kovacik, Charles F., and John J. Winberry
1987 South Carolina: The Making of a Landscape. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
Kron, F.J.
1875 Antiquities of Stanly and Montgomery Counties, North Carolina. Annual Report of the Board of
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the
Institution for the Year 1874, pp. 389-390.
LaPoint, Dennis J.
1999 The Gold Rush in North Carolina. Geotimes 44(12):14-18.
178

Lee, J. Edward, and Anne E. Beard
1999 Rock Hill, South Carolina: Gateway to the New South. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South
Carolina.
Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina (by John Lawson [ 1709]). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Leigh, David S.
1994 Mercury Contamination and Floodplain Sedimentation from Former Gold Mines in North Georgia.
American Water Resources Association, Water Resources Bulletin 30(4): 739-748.
2002 Geomorphology of the Ravensford Tract. In Cultural and Historical Resource Investigations of the
Ravensford Land Exchange Tract, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Swain County, North Carolina,
by Paul A. Webb, pp. 135-156. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Durham. Submitted to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, North Carolina.
Luttrell, Gwendolyn W.
1978 Gold, Base Metal, and Related Deposits in North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report
78-132. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.
McAvoy, J.M., and L.D. McAvoy (editors)
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series 8, Richmond.
McClelland, Linda Flint, and J. Timothy Keller
1999 National Register Bulletin Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes.
Revised version, originally published 1989. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
McDonald, J.M.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a
Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1-59. Contributions from the Virginia Museum of Natural
History, Martinsville.
Markewich, H.W., M.J. Pavich, and G.R. Buell
1990 Contrasting Soils and Landscapes of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, Eastern United States.
Geomorphology 3:417-447.
Mathis, Mark A.
1979 North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction and Application to Three Highway
Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication 22,
Raleigh.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North -America. Journal of World Prehistory 2(1):1-
52.
2004 Peopling of North America. In The Quaternary Period in the United States, Volume 1, edited by Alan
R. Gillespie, Stephen C. Porter, and Brian F. Atwater, pp. 539-563. Elsevier Science, New York.
Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes,
Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis J. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62:559-563.
Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith
1986 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In Foraging,
Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited
by Sarah W. Neusius, pp. 3-3 1. Occasional Paper No. 6. Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Merrell, James H.
1987 This Western World: The Evolution of the Piedmont, 1525-1725. In The Siouan Project: Seasons I
and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens Jr., H. Trawick Ward, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr., pp 19-27. Monograph
Series No. 1. Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1989 The Indians' New World: Catawbas and Their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of
Removal. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Miller, Carl F.
1957 Revaluation of the eastern Siouan problem with particular emphasis on the Virginia branches— the
Occaneechi, the Saponi, and the Tutelo. Anthropological Papers 52, Bureau of Ethnology Bulletin 164.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
179

Miller, C.M.
1904 Map of Stanly County, N.C. Salisbury, North Carolina.
Miner's and Farmers' Journal
1831 The Steam Engine is now Extremely Employed.... September 7, 1831. Charlotte, North Carolina.
Mooney, James
1894 The Siouan Tribes of the East. Bureau of Ethnology Bulletin 22. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
Morse, Dan F., Jr., and P.A. Morse
1983 Archaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley. Academic Press, New York.
Mountjoy, Joseph B.
1989 Early Radiocarbon Dates from a site on the Pee Dee -Siouan Frontier in the Piedmont of Central North
Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 38:7-22.
Muller, Jon
1989 The Southern Cult. In The Southeastern Ceremonial Complex: Artifacts and Analysis, edited by
Patricia Galloway, pp. 11-26. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Nassaney, Michael S., and Kendra Pyle
1999 Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central Arkansas. American
Antiquity 64:243-264.
National Park Service (NPS)
1990 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Washington, D.C.
Nitze, Henry B.C., and H.A.J. Wilkins
1897 Gold Mining in North Carolina and Adjacent South Appalachian Regions. North Carolina Geological
Survey Bulletin No. 10, Raleigh.
Noble, Bruce J., Jr., and Robert Spude
1997 Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites. National Register
Bulletin 42, 1992, revised 1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register,
History and Education.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development, Raleigh.
Oliver, Billy
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point Type. Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In Structure and
Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211.
University of Alabama at Birmingham.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology, University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Oppenheim, Jill A.
1996 Sedimentation Rates and Fluvial Response to Land -Use Changes in a Small Georgia Piedmont
Watershed. M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Athens.
Pardee, J.T., and C.F. Park Jr.
1948 Gold Deposits of the Southern Piedmont. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 213.
Parker, Darryl
2001 Howell Parker (b. 1757): Revolutionary War Soldier. Electronic document,
https://www.genealogy.com/forum/sumames/topics/parker/I2744/, accessed August 5, 2021.
Pavlowsky, Robert T., Scott A. Lecce, Gwenda Bassett, and Derek J. Martin
2010 Legacy Hg-Cu Contamination of Active Stream Sediments in the Gold Hill Mining District, North
Carolina. Southeastern Geographer 50(4):503-522.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Pratt, J.H.
1902 The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1901. North Carolina Geological Survey Econ. Paper 6,
Raleigh.
1904 The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1903. North Carolina Geological Survey Econ. Paper 8.
180

1907 The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1906. North Carolina Geological Survey Econ. Paper
14. E.M. Uzzell & Co., Raleigh.
Pratt, J.H., and H.M. Berry
1911 The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1908, 1909, and 1910. North Carolina Geological
Survey Econ. Paper 23.
1919 The Mining Industry in North Carolina during 1913-1917. North Carolina Geological Survey Econ.
Paper 49.
Pratt, J.H., and A.A. Steel
1907 Recent Changes in Gold Mining in North Carolina That Have Favorably Affected the Industry.
Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 23(3):108-133.
Quivik, Frederic L.
2003 Gold and Tailings: The Standard Mill at Bodie, California. IA 29(2):5-28.
Raleigh News & Observer
1936 Digging for History in a Wheat Field in Randolph County, North Carolina. 16 August. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Ramsey, Robert W.
1964 Carolina Cradle: Settlement of the Northwest North Carolina Frontier, 1747-1762. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Reid, James J., Jr.
1967 Pee Dee Pottery from the Mound at Town Creek. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Richards, Robert H.
1909 Ore Dressing. Volume IV, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Rights, Douglas L.
1931 The Trading Path to the Indians. North Carolina Historical Review 8:403-426.
1947 The American Indian in North Carolina. Duke University Press, Durham.
Roberts, Bruce
1971 The Carolina Gold Rush. McNally and Loftin, Charlotte.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. M.A. Thesis, Dept. of
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1996 Technological Innovations in Economic and Social Contexts. In Archaeology of the Mid -Holocene
Southeast, edited by K. Sassaman and D. Anderson, pp. 57-74. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Shankman, Arnold, E. Thomas Crowson, C. Jack Tucker, and Joel Nichols
1983 York County, South Carolina: Its People and Its Heritage. The Donning Company, Norfolk, Virginia.
Sharpe, Ivey L.
1972 Stanly County, USA: The Story of an Area and an Era, 1841-1991. Piedmont Press, Greensboro, North
Carolina.
Shelford, Victor E.
1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois, Urbana.
Shumate, M. Scott, and Larry R. Kimball
2016 Archaeological Investigations at the Cold Canyon Site (31 SW265), Swain County, North Carolina.
Appalachian State University Laboratories of Archaeological Science, Boone. Submitted to the National
Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, North Carolina.
Smallwood, Ashley, Heather Smith, Charlotte Pevny, and Thomas Jennings
2018 The Convergent Evolution of Serrated Points on the Southern Plains -Woodland Border of Central
North America. In Convergent Evolution and Stone Tool Technology, edited by Michael J. O'Brien, Briggs
Buchanan, and Merin I. Eren, pp. 203-227. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Smith, Bruce D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: from Dalton to de Soto 10,500-500 B.P. Advances
in World Archaeology Vol. 5 Academic Press, Inc., New York.
1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1571.
South, Stanley
1959 A Study of the Prehistory of the Roanoke Rapids Basin. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel -Hill.
181

2005 Archaeology on the Roanoke. Monograph No. 4, The Research Laboratories of Archaeology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Spielmann, Katherine Ann
1976 A Consideration of the Archaic Period in Forsyth County, North Carolina. B.A. Honors thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Stanly County Deed Books
1887-1893 Records on file, Stanly County Register of Deeds, Albemarle, North Carolina. Electronic database,
http://www.stanlyrod.net/, accessed 29-30 August 2021.
2021 Electronic resource, http://www.stanlyrod.net/, accessed 30 August 2021.
Stanyard, William F.
2003 Archaic Period Archaeology of Northern Georgia. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology
Series Report No. 38 and Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 13.
State Board of Agriculture (SBA)
1896 North Carolina and its Resources. State Board of Agriculture, Raleigh. M.I. and J.C. Stewart,
Winston, North Carolina.
Stephens, Ronald B.
1989 Soil Survey of Stanly County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service.
Swanton, John R.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution, Bulletin No. 137 Bureau of
American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Swope, Karen K., and Carrie J. Gregory
2017 Mining in the Southern California Deserts: A Historic Context Statement and Research Design.
Technical Report 17-42. Statistical Research Inc., Redlands, California.
Thomas, Cyrus
1891 Catalogue of Precontact Works East of the Rocky Mountains. Bulletin No. 12. Bureau of American
Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1894 Reports on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Twelfth Annual Report of
the Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-1891. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Thomason and Associates
2005 National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Study of the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project in North
Carolina FERC No. 2197. Thomason and Associates, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tischendorf, Alfred P.
1955 North Carolina and the British Investor, 1880-1910. North Carolina Historical Review 32(4):512-518.
Trimble, Stanley W.
1974 Man -Induced Soil Erosion on the Southern Piedmont: 1700-1970. Soil and Water Conservation
Society, Ankeny, Iowa.
Twitty, Eric., and Jay Fell
n.d. Context for Historic Mining Resources in the Black Hills and South Dakota: A Guide for
Identification, Interpretation, and Evaluating Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places.
Mountain States Historical, Lafayette, Colorado. Electronic document,
https://history.sd.gov/preservation/docs/MiningContextDraft.pdf, accessed August 5, 2021.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
2020 Electronic document, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Version 21, June 3,
Stanly County, North Carolina, accessed August 2021.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI)
1897 Report on Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890. Census Office, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1901 Twelfth Census of the United States, Taken in the Year 1900: Population, Part I. Census Office, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
2000 National Register of Historic Places. "Resources of the Nation Ford Road Area" nomination form.
National Register Files, York County. South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia.
1991 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1977 Albemarle NW, North Carolina, 7.5-minute orthophotoquad map (1:24,000).
182

1980 New London, North Carolina, 7.5-minute topographic map (1:24,000). Photoinspected 1983.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory of
North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M. Mathis and J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1991 The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology
10(1):40-53.
1993 Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont A.D. 1000 to 1700. Monograph No. 2. Research
Laboratories of Anthropology. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Webb, Paul A., and David S. Leigh
1995 Geomorphological and Archaeological Investigations of a Buried Site on the Yadkin River Floodplain.
Southern Indian Studies 44:1-36.
Weisner, G.
1996 Saltville Site Has Evidence of 14,000-Year-Old Feasts. The Mammoth Trumpet 1(4):1, 18-20. Center
for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
Western Carolinian
1828 Gold! Fine gold! August 26, 1828. Salisbury, North Carolina.
1838 Parker's Mine. August 24, 1838. Salisbury, North Carolina.
White, Wesley D., Jr.
1982 Saponi: written as part of the "Historical Overview" section of a petition for recognition in behalf of
the Saponi descendants along Drowning Creek, Robeson County, North Carolina. The Papers of Wesley D.
White Jr., the South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston, South Carolina.
Williams, S.D.
1994 Geomorphic Response of Yahoola Creek to Gold Mining in North Georgia. Unpublished M.A. thesis,
University of Georgia, Athens.
Wilson, Jack H.
1983 A Study of Late Precontact, Protohistoric, and Historic Indians of the Carolina and Virginia Piedmont:
Structure, Process, and Ecology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Woodall, J. Ned.
1984 The Donnaha Site: 1973, 1975 Excavations. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication No.
22. North Carolina Archaeological Council and North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division
of Archives and History, Archaeology Branch, Raleigh.
1990 Archeological Investigations in the Upper Yadkin River Valley, 1984-1987. Publication 25. North
Carolina Archeological Council, Raleigh.
Woodall, J. Ned, Alan N. Snavely, and Terrell L. Armistead
1977 Final Report of an Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Randleman Reservoir Area. Wake Forest
University Archaeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Report submitted to National Park
Service, Atlanta.
Works Progress Administration (WPA)
1940 Stanly County Cemetery Survey Records. Historical Records Survey of North Carolina, North
Carolina Office of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
183

This page intentionally left blank.
184

APPENDIX 1: ARTIFACT CATALOG

Depth RawMat/Temp Cortex?/ wt
Site Bag# Uni# ST Strat Horizon (crabs) ArtType er/Material Color ToolType Qty (g) Comments
31ST273 1 LTl 18-8 I A/E LTFL Rhy N PPK-Frag 1 10.7 4-5cm; medial frag of lanc blade
31ST273 2 LTl SURF LTFL MV Y PPK-Stem 1 3.1 3.4cm; prox frag- missing distal end; contracting
stem w/ round base; cortes along median ridge of
both surfaces; Adena?? (too small>> Randolph,
instead?)
31ST274
3
L1
SURF
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST275
4
L1
36-4
I
AT
0-18
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST276
5
L1
SURF
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST277
6
Ll
62-1
I
A
0-18
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST278
7
L1
71-19
I
A
0-8
LDEB
Rhy
Y
1
31ST278
8
L1
72-15
I
A
0-23
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31 ST279
9
LT 1
79-4
I
A
0-15
LTFL
Rhy
N
PPK-Frag
1
4.1 3-4cm; roughly serrated blade; missing likely stem
31ST280
10
L1
87-3
I
A
0-16
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST281
21
Ll
N315 E285
I
A
0-5
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST281
11
Ll
96-1
I
A
0-5
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST281
12
LT 1
SURF
LTFL
Qz
N
Preform/PPK-Frag
1
9.3 4-5cm; medial frag of lanc blade near base, but
missing basal edge
31ST281
22
Ll
SURF
LDEB
Rhy
Y
1
31ST282
13
Ll
99-13
I
A
0-10
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST282
23
Ll
N115 E100
I
A
0-13
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST282
23
L2
N115 E100
I
A
0-13
LDEB
MV
N
1
same material as Bag#2-LT1 PPK
31ST283
14
Ll
101-4
I
A
0-12
LDEB
Rhy
Y
1
31ST284
20
Ll
122-3
I
A
0-21
LDEB
Rhy
Y
1
31ST284
24
Ll
N115 E100
I
A
0-7
LDEB
Rhy
Y
1
31 ST285
18
LTl
SURF
LTFL
Rhy
N
Preform -Stem
1
28.6 5-6cm; broad blade; missing distal end; sm rounded
stem started
31ST286
17
Ll
112-10
I
A
0-20
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST287
19
Ll
116-12
I
A
0-10
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST287
25
Ll
N185 E230
I
A
0-10
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST288
15
Ll
112-4
I
A
0-30
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST288
16
Ll
113-3
I
A
0-10
LDEB
Rhy
Y
1
31ST288
26
Ll
N300 E285
I
A
0-20
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31ST288
27
Ll
N185 E200
I
A
0-10
LDEB
Rhy
N
1
31 ST289
28
H1
TR_Fea4
CERM
Albany -slipped
1
rim frag (of jug?); slipped interior & exterior; inside
is threaded
31ST289
I
H1
Str1
CERM
ww
1
plate frag