Appendix L - Archaeological Survey

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I Response to DEMLR Additional Information Request
Appendices
PIEDMONT
LITHIUM
Appendix L: Archaeological
Survey of the Carolina
Lithium Mine Project
Expansion

�� TrRC
Archaeological Survey of
the Carolina Lithium
Mine Project Expansion,
Gaston County, North
Carolina
FBI :: 1
December 2021
Prepared For:
HDR Inc.
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202
Prepared By:
TRC
621 Chatham Ave. 2nd Floor
Columbia, SC

TrRc
This page intentionally left blank.

4% TrRC
Draft Report: Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine
Project Expansion, Gaston County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
HDR Inc.
440 S. Church Street
Suite 1000 Charlotte, NC 28202
Submitted by:
TRC Environmental, Inc.
621 Chatham Ave., 2"d Floor
Columbia, SC 29205
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
TRC Project Number: 441178
-�; r--�-
Sean Norris, MA, RPA, Principal Investigator
Authored by:
Brenda Detty, MS and Joseph DeAngelis, MA
December 2021

TrRc
This page intentionally left blank.

4% TrRC
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) was contracted by HDR Inc. (HDR) to complete a Phase I
archaeological survey of 929 acres (ac) for the Carolina Lithium Mine Project in Gaston County,
North Carolina (Project). TRC conducted this survey following guidelines set by the North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology (OSA), and in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800 and 60 (CFR 2020a, 2020b;
OSA 2017). The purpose of the Phase I archaeological survey was to document cultural resources
located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE), evaluate these resources for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and determine whether the project will have any
effect on cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP.
The archaeological area of potential effect (APE) for the Project includes 44 parcels of land with
an area totaling 3.75953 square kilometers (km2) (1.451565 square miles [mi2]). This is situated
approximately 2.25 km (1.4 mi) east to southeast of Cherryville, North Carolina. The landscape of
the APE is comprised of pasture, cultivated fields, forest, and wetlands. Beaverdam Creek is a water
feature in the Project area and is present to some extent in the APE.
Prior to initiating fieldwork, TRC conducted a literature and records search via the OSA. The
background research revealed that there were no previously recorded archaeological sites or
investigations within the APE. There are, however, seven previously recorded archaeological sites
and three investigations within a 1.6 km (1 mi) radius of the APE.
The Phase I archaeological survey was conducted July, August, September, and November 2021.
The survey was conducted via systematic Shovel Test Probes (STPs) excavated at 30-meter (m)
intervals and was supplemented by pedestrian survey and visual inspection at 10-m intervals in
areas with high surface visibility and/or slopes greater than 15 percent. A total of 2,187 STPs were
excavated within the APE, of which 34 of which were positive for cultural materials. Nineteen field
sites were recorded as a result of this investigation. Thirteen of these are historic in nature, two are
prehistoric isolated finds, and four are cemeteries. TRC recommends that the historic and
prehistoric sites (3IGS398-31GS399, and 31GS403-31GS411, and 31GS413) are not eligible for
listing on the NRHP and no additional archaeological studies are needed for those sites. The four
historic cemeteries (31GS401, 31GS402, 31GS412, and 31GS414) have not been assessed for
NRHP eligibility and will need to be avoided with a minimum 25-foot buffer surrounding each.
If unanticipated human remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities, we recommend
immediate consultation with Gaston County, the OSA, and other interested parties in accordance
the Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act. If archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, the procedures codified at 36 CFR 800.13(b) will
apply. If significant artifacts are encountered, it is recommended that the North Carolina Division
of Historic Resources be consulted. After adhering to these suggestions, TRC recommends that the
proposed project can move forward without adversely effecting any cultural resources.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

TrRC
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

4% TrRC
Table of Contents
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.........................................................................................................I
1.0
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1
2.0
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................................................... 5
2.1
PROJECT SETTING................................................................................................................ 5
2.2
PALEOENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................................... 5
2.3
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................................... 5
2.4
GEOLOGY............................................................................................................................ 8
2.5
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY...................................................................................... 8
2.6
CLIMATE............................................................................................................................. 8
2.7
SOILS...................................................................................................................................9
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT.....................................................................................................13
3.1 PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW...................................................................................................13
Paleoindian Period (12,500 - 9,990 B.P) ................................................................................13
Archaic Period (9,900 - 3000 B.P.).......................................................................................... 14
Woodland Period (3, 000 -1000 B.P) ......................................................................................15
Mississippian Period (A.D. 1000 - 450)...................................................................................17
3.2 EUROPEAN CONTACT........................................................................................................17
3.3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE SURVEY AREA...................................................................18
Historic Native American Context...........................................................................................18
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.......................................................................................19
4.0 BACKGROUND LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH..........................................21
4.1 RESOURCES AND INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN A 1.6 KM (I MI) RADIUS OF THE STUDY AREA..21
4.2 HISTORIC MAPS................................................................................................................24
5.0 METHODS..........................................................................................................................27
5.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODS.............................................................................27
5.2 LABORATORY METHODS................................................................................................... 27
5.3 NRHP ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA...........................................................................................28
5.4 CURATION......................................................................................................................... 28
6.0 SURVEY RESULTS.................................................................................
6.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS .....................................................
31 GS398 29
31 GS399 32
31 GS401 39
31 GS402 43
31 GS403 47
31 GS404 49
31 GS405 52
31 GS406 55
31 GS407 58
31 GS408 61
31 GS409 63
31 GS410 66
31 GS411 69
....................... 29
....................... 29
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
0

TrRC
31 GS412 72
31 GS413 76
31 GS414 78
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................. 81
8.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 83
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina iv

TrRC
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project area location..........................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Project area location and survey areas...............................................................................3
Figure 3. Overview of typical hardwoods, facing north...................................................................6
Figure 4. Overview of fallow field, facing east................................................................................7
Figure 5. Overview of grassy pasture, facing east............................................................................7
Figure 6. Overview of development associated with residential structures, facing east ..................
8
Figure 7. Typical soil profile within the APE...................................................................................9
Figure 8. Soils identified within the project area............................................................................11
Figure 9. Previously recorded resources in the vicinity of the project area ....................................
23
Figure 10. The APE georeferenced on the 1911 Lincolnton USGS topographic quadrangle . .......
25
Figure 13. Overview of site 31GS398, facing south.......................................................................31
Figure 14. Typical soil profile on site 31GS398.............................................................................31
Figure 16. Overview of site 31GS399, facing northwest................................................................34
Figure 17. Overview of Foundation 1 on site 31GS399, facing south...........................................34
Figure 18. Overview of Foundation 2 on site 31GS399, facing northeast.....................................35
Figure 19. Portion of cinderblock foundation for Foundation 3.....................................................35
Figure 20. Typical soil profile on site 31GS399.............................................................................36
Figure 21. USDA soil survey map dated 1909 depicting location of structure in the vicinity of site
31 GS399..................................................................................................................................
37
Figure 22. Aerial map dated 1938 depicting multiple structures in the vicinity of site 31GS399..37
Figure 23. Aerial map dated 1984 structures associated with site 31GS399 having been demolished.
.................................................................................................................................................
38
Figure 25. Plan map of site 31GS401, unnamed cemetery.............................................................41
Figure 26. Overview of Site 31GS401, unnamed cemetery...........................................................42
Figure 25. Plan map of site 31GS402, the Baker Family Cemetery...............................................45
Figure 26. Overview of site 31 GS402, the Baker Family Cemetery ..............................................46
Figure 27. Overview of site 31GS403, facing north.......................................................................47
Figure 29. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS403.......................................................................
49
Figure 31. Overview of site 31GS404, facing north.......................................................................51
Figure 32. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS404.......................................................................
51
Figure 33. Dilapidated shed with farming equipment, facing north...............................................52
Figure 34. Foundation remnants within site 31 GS405, facing south ..............................................
53
Figure 35. Structural remains within site 31GS405, facing east.....................................................53
Figure 37. Typical soil profile within site 31GS405.......................................................................55
Figure 39. Overview of site 31GS406, facing northwest................................................................57
Figure 40. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS406.......................................................................
57
Figure 41. Overview of site 31GS407 positive STP, facing west..................................................58
Figure 43. Surface scatter with possible chimney remnants, facing west......................................60
Figure 44. Typical soil profile within site 31GS407.......................................................................60
Figure 45. Overview of site 31GS408, facing south.......................................................................61
Figure 47. Typical soil profile within site 31GS408.......................................................................63
Figure 49. Overview of site 31 GS409, facing west........................................................................
65
Figure 50. Two -track road within site 31 GS409, facing northwest ................................................
65
Figure 51. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS409.......................................................................
66
Figure 53. Overview of site 31GS410, facing northeast.................................................................68
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina v

A% TrRC
Figure 54. Typical soil profile within site 31GS410.......................................................................68
Figure 56. Overview of site 31GS411, facing east.........................................................................71
Figure 57. Typical soil profile within site 31GS411.......................................................................71
Figure 58. Mixed concrete and brick foundation............................................................................72
Figure 59. Overview of site 31GS412, facing southeast................................................................73
Figure 62. Overview of site 31GS413 from across the unnamed creek tributary, facing north.....76
Figure 64. Typical soil profile within site 31GS413.......................................................................78
Figure 61. Overview of site 31GS414, facing north.......................................................................80
Tables
Table 1. Soils identified within the project area............................................................................10
Table 2. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a one mile radius of the study area ....... 22
Table 3. Previous investigations within a one mile radius of the study area..................................22
Table 4. Summary of results of the historic maps research............................................................24
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina vi

4% TrRC
1.0 INTRODUCTION
TRC was contracted by HDR to complete a Phase I archaeological survey for the proposed
Carolina Lithium Mine expansion in Gaston County, North Carolina (Figures 1 and 2). The project
area consists of 1,157 ac located 2.25 km (1.4 mi) east to southeast of Cherryville, North Carolina.
The Phase I archaeological survey was conducted in July, August, September, and November 2021
to document cultural resources located within the project APE, evaluate these resources for listing
in the NRHP, and determine whether the Project will have any effect on archaeological resources
that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Federal permits will be required for the Project,
therefore all work was done in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended,
and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR § Part 800 (CFR 2020a, 2020b).
The archaeological APE includes a 929-acre expansion to the original Carolina Lithium Project
(Norris and Styer 2021) and an additional 228 ac outside of the mine boundary. Areas deemed to
have a high probability for containing archaeological sites were subjected to intensive shovel
testing. The remainder of the project area consists of slopes greater than 15 percent and
floodplains that will not be developed; these areas were subjected to pedestrian survey.
The results of the intensive archaeological survey are presented in this report. This report is divided
into seven chapters. Chapter 2 contains a brief discussion of the general environmental conditions,
and Chapter 3 provides a cultural context of the area containing the APE. Chapter 4 is a discussion
on the results of the background research, as well as historic maps of the project area. Chapter 5
describes field and laboratory methods employed during the project. The survey results are
presented in Chapter 6, and the conclusions and recommendations are provided in Chapter 7.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

i TrRC
4
_ con•--^r c^ j _ � �`_ —�._. "tom Ll tir�i l.�
�:• } `�`-�] �,`.
'lE7['.
•�. ;I
�-- - li --'lf alb+-.� �r
i'
-f
IIII I( r
-;
*`I
J. I , Lincointon West�
Bessemer City
' __ �.VA \
•_� •'�"'to r_•%'-
TW-
NOVEMBER
2021
0 Cultural Resources APE
best
,i a
0 USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Boundary
KenlurkY �"5rginia
0 1,500 3,000
Project Location North
.11 hn
FEET
0 450 900
s„arH
Notes:
Carolina
METERS
T. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
2. Baserrap acquired from Esri "USA Topo Maps" online service layer, 7.5' Quadrangles: Lull West (1979)
Georgia
1:36,DOD 1" = 3,000'
Quad ID: 35081-1)3 and Bessemer City (1979) Quad ID: 35081-C3.. North Carolina
Figure 1. Project area location.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

TrRC
if j- R
w
,ram o
`cam
Hebb �'do
k
h
d
\Rd
. �
m
�aa
Swnbeam,c
s
o ,
safe
Rq
J.
-- •
F=—] Cultural Resources
APE
1 1,500 3,000
f*-#.111FEET�
64
4 r
Notes
METERS
1 Map Projection: NAID 1983 StatePlano North Carolina RIPS i Feet, Foot US
2 Basernap acquired from Esn "World Imagery"
1:34,166 1 " = 2,847'
Figure 2. Project area location and survey areas.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

TrRC
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

TrRC
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1 Project Setting
The APE is approximately 2.25 km (1.4 mi) east to southeast of the town of Cherryville in the
northwestern corner of Gaston County, North Carolina. The area containing the Project is rural
with very little commercial development. The landscape of the APE is characterized by pasture,
planted agricultural fields, planted pine, and mixed pine -hardwood forest (Figures 3-5).
Residential lots can be sparsely found throughout (Figure 6).
2.2 Paleoenvironment
The contemporary climate and vegetation of the study area are products of a long and complex
process of natural and human -induced change. The average winter temperatures in the study area
were considerably colder during the last glacial period, which lasted from ca. 25,000 to 15,000
before present (B.P.). At that time, the study area was covered by a boreal forest in which pines and
spruce were dominant (Delcourt and Delcourt 1983; Whitehead 1973). The climate warmed and
precipitation increased during the Late Glacial Period (ca. 15,000 to 10,000 B.P.); the period during
which the first humans arrived in the region. During the late Pleistocene, coniferous forests were
replaced by northern hardwoods as the dominant canopy species (Bryson et al. 1970; Watts 1975,
1980; Whitehead 1973). The period ca. 10,000-5000 B.P., referred to as the Altithermal or
Hypsithermal, was a period of continued warming and decreased precipitation (Bryson et al. 1970;
Watts 1975). The dominant vegetation that survived was the oak -hickory forest (Watts 1975;
Whitehead 1973). The climate since ca. 5000 B.P. has cooled slightly, with a possible increase in
precipitation. The oak -hickory forests decreased in size and became increasingly intermixed with
pines (Watts 1975; Whitehead 1973). Although the earliest settlers reported large stands of yellow
pine in the oak -hickory forests of the Piedmont, it is not known if those stands were products of
natural forces or of Native American hunting methods, which used fire to drive and concentrate
game.
2.3 Historic Environment
Traditionally, the project area is in the Oak -Pine Forest zone characteristic of the Piedmont (Braun
1950). Oaks and hickories are prevalent in this forest, with white oak being the predominant
species. Pines are also widespread in this zone (Braun 1950). Dyer (2006) has updated Braun's
research and placed the survey area within the Eastern Appalachian Oak section of the Mesophytic
forest. Regardless, the vegetation of the project area has been greatly modified in the past through
climatic change, agricultural and silvicultural practices, and development.
Several sources suggest significant changes in the forest composition of the project region during
historic times (Trimble 1974; Wharton 1977). Lowland vegetation in the Piedmont physiographic
province has probably increased since European settlement. Trimble (1974) has documented the
extreme erosion of upland areas in the Piedmont after agricultural clearing and the consequent
sedimentation of stream valleys throughout this province. Valley sedimentation led to river and
stream aggradation and a general rise of groundwater tables in the valleys. Formerly well -drained
valleys with clear streams became swampy, and the streams themselves became muddy and
sluggish. Although Piedmont lowlands/swamps existed prior to European settlement, they were
expanded by settlement activities (Wharton 1977).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 5

A% TrRC
The upland hardwoods probably exhibit the most change since European settlement. These forests,
formerly dominant over most of Piedmont, were severely impacted by agricultural clearing in the
1700s and 1800s, and again by extensive timbering in the late 1800s and 1900s (Trimble 1974).
In the past, the project area has been subjected to extensive land clearing that has severely altered
the natural landscape and environment. Mixed hardwoods, situated along drainages, and loblolly
pines mixed with deciduous secondary growth in the uplands are found in areas that have suffered
the least impact from these activities. Starting in the twentieth century, residential, and commercial
developments have encroached upon the area, greatly modifying the natural landscape. Vegetation
within the project area consists predominately of hardwood forests, fallow fields, and pastures
along with smaller parcels of planted pine, secondary growth, and a small agricultural field.
Figure 3. Overview of typical hardwoods, facing north.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

TrRC
,t
Figure 4. Overview of fallow field, facing east.
Figure 5. Overview of grassy pasture, facing east.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 7

TrRC
Figure 6. Overview of development associated with residential structures, facing east.
2.4 Geology
The project area is in the Piedmont physiographic province, which is a dissected peneplain that
contains remnants of an ancient mountain range that underwent base leveling during the
Cretaceous and Tertiary periods (ca. 160,000,000-70,000,000 years ago). It is composed primarily
of high-grade metamorphic rock such as granite, schist, and gneiss formations cut by intrusive
diabases and diorites (Watson 1902). Specifically, parent materials include mica schist,
amphibolite, calcareous mica schist, and micaceous marble. Coarsely grained Precambrian rocks
of granite, gneiss, and schist are typical in the study area.
2.5 Physiography and Hydrology
The project area is in the Catawba River basin. The largest permanent water feature within the
project area is Beaverdam Creek. Two intermittent streams flow south into Beaverdam Creek
which meanders north and west, emptying into South Fork/Catawba River approximately 4.8 miles
to the west. The Catawba-Wateree river system flows into South Carolina where it empties into
the Atlantic Ocean.
Elevations range from approximately 800 feet above mean sea level (amsl) along Beaverdam
Creek to approximately 900 feet amsl on upland ridges. Topographic features within the project
area include ridgetop and ridge slopes, hilltops and hillslopes, upland plains, and floodplains.
2.6 Climate
The regional climate of the study area is characterized by long, hot summers and moderately short,
cool winters. The average daily temperatures range from 43°F in winter to 88°F in summer
(Woody 1989). Precipitation is heavy throughout the year and sustained droughts are uncommon.
Rainfall is adequate for most crops during the peak -growing season of April through September.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 8

A% TrRC
Because of the mild winters, precipitation in the form of snowfall is light, averaging about six
inches annually.
2.7 Soils
Soils within the APE were relatively shallow; many areas encountered were moderately to heavily
eroded, with subsoil present at the surface. Although there was a degree of soil variation dependent
upon the area of the APE, a typical soil profile consisted of 10 to 20 cm of brown (IOYR 5/3) to
reddish brown (5YR 5/4) silty to clayey loam over a red (2.5YR 5/6 or 4/6) clay or clay loam
subsoil (Figure 7). According to the USDA Web Soil Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS] 2021) there are sixteen distinct soil
types in the project area (Figure 8). These are summarized in Table 1 below.
Figure 7. Typical soil profile within the APE.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

4% TrRC
Table 1. Soils identified within the project area
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Drainage
Ac in
Percent of
Symbol
Characteristic
APE
APE
Appling sandy loam,
ApB
Well drained
66.7
7.2
1 to 6 percent slopes
Cecil sandy clay loam,
CeB2
Well drained
150.6
16.2
2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
CeD2
Well drained
52.2
5.6
moderately eroded
Cecil -Urban land complex,
CfB
Well drained
3.2
0.3
2 to 8 percent slopes
Chewacla loam,
Somewhat poorly
ChA
51.6
5.6
0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
drained
Congaree loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
Moderately well
CoA
44.7
4.8
frequently flooded
drained
Helena sandy loam,
Moderately well
HeB
16.2
1.7
1 to 6 percent slopes
drained
Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
LdB2
Well drained
216.0
23.2
moderately eroded
Lloyd sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
LdD2
Well drained
115.9
12.5
moderately eroded
Madison sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
MaB2
Well drained
6.9
0.7
moderately eroded
Madison sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
MaD2
Well drained
14.4
1.6
moderately eroded
Pacolet sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
PaD2
Well drained
10.4
1.1
moderately eroded
Pacolet sandy loam,
PaE
Well drained
97.9
10.5
15 to 25 percent slopes
Pacolet sandy loam,
PaF
Well drained
17
1.8
25 to 45 percent slopes
Wedowee sandy loam,
WeD
Well drained
63.5
6.8
6 to 15 percent slopes
Worsham loam,
WoA
Poorly drained
2.6
0.3
0 to 2 percent slopes
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 10

TrRC
U Cultural Resources APE
Kenkrcky i'drgania
Soil Series
0 1,500 3,000 Tenn see
FEET -tL
450 900
mol:� NotesCcmufin,
METERS 1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US Georgia
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
1:36,000 1" = 3,000' 3. Data Source, Soil Survey Staff, gSSURGO Database for North Carolina. USDA, NRCS.
Figure 8. Soils identified within the project area
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

TrRC
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 12

TrRC
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT
Prehistoric occupation of the region surrounding the Project area is likely to have occurred
continuously since at least 13,500 B.P. Throughout this period various changes in technology,
settlements patterns, subsistence practices, population densities, social organization, ideology, and
other aspects of human behavior have occurred. This chapter provides a general overview of
current accepted understanding of these changes, as documented in the archaeological record of
the region. It is divided into chronological periods that are widely accepted for the cultural
sequence of the piedmont of North Carolina: Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian. A
brief context of the historic settlement periods of Gaston County follows.
3.1 Prehistoric Overview
Humans have occupied the Carolina Piedmont for at least 11,500 years. Several changes in
behavior, brought about by shifts in environmental and/or social conditions, are evident through
time. Each period is characterized by distinctive economic, technological, and social trends, and
is divided into smaller sub -periods and phases that represent more minor changes in settlement,
social organization, and technology. The following discussion outlines the prehistory of the
Piedmont region (after Cleveland et al. 1997).
Paleoindian Period (12,500 - 9,990 B.P.)
Paleoindian peoples throughout North America utilized a subsistence -based economy, relying on
the foraging of natural resources as well as hunting large game. Several theories have been
forwarded to explain exactly who the first Americans were, as well as when and how they arrived
(Bonnichsen and Turnmire 1999; Lepper and Bonnichsen 2004). Until recently, the prevailing
theory on the matter postulated a late arrival for the first Americans at about 11,500 years ago
(Haynes 1964; Martin 1973). This model argues that the first migration originated from Siberia
and links the initial presence of humans in the Americas with the Clovis culture and its diagnostic
lithic technology, the Clovis point, a lanceolate hafted biface (Haynes 1964). Others have further
argued that the spread of Clovis people throughout the Americas can be traced by the rapid
extinction of Ice Age megafauna including mastodon and mammoth (Martin 1973). Such theories
point to over -hunting by early peoples as the cause of mass megafauna extinction during the
terminal Pleistocene.
The Late -Arrival model has been challenged by a growing body of archaeological, linguistic, and
biological evidence supporting the existence of pre -Clovis occupations in the Americas (Lepper
and Bonnichsen 2004). Such evidence suggests that Paleoamericans were in fact diverse peoples
with diverse cultures and lithic technologies, who arrived in the Americas more than 12,000 years
ago (Gruhn 1997). The Monte Verde site in Chile (Dillehay 1989, 1997), Meadowcroft
Rockshelter in Pennsylvania (Adavasio et al. 1990), and Cactus Hill in Virginia (McAvoy and
McAvoy 1997) are examples of a few possible pre -Clovis sites. Excavations at 38AL23 (the
Topper site) located along the Savannah River in South Carolina, have generated much interest in
the pre -Clovis and Paleoindian Southeast, but no formal publication is available.
The bulk of Paleoindian data from North Carolina is derived from studies east of the project area,
notably at the Hardaway Site in the Uwharrie Mountains (Coe 1964; Ward and Davis 1999). Watts
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 13

A% TrRC
(1980) has observed that the Paleoindian period coincides with a period of rapid climatic and
environmental change exhibited by the disappearance of boreal forest cover and the appearance of
deciduous forest cover. This probably greatly influenced the daily decision -making processes of
the Paleoindian people in terms of resources exploited and places of habitation. Paleoindian groups
are thought to have consisted of small, highly transient bands made up of several nuclear and/or
extended families scattered across the landscape. For many years, subsistence strategies were
thought to have focused on the specialized exploitation of now -extinct megafauna (Michie 1977).
However, many researchers, including Adovasio et al. (1977), Cleland (1965), Funk (1977), and
Guilday and Parmalee (1982), dispute this conclusion and suggest that Paleoindian people were
exploiting modern fauna resources too. These studies have revealed Paleoindian assemblages in
direct association with the remains of modern fauna. Watts (1980) has indicated that modern fauna
could have been present in the Carolinas during the late Pleistocene era (13,000-9800 B.P.),
coexisting with remnants of boreal forest and grasslands species. More recent debate also has
arisen regarding the Paleoindian groups being more eclectic in their food procurement (Adovasio
et al. 1977). That is, many researchers now believe that Paleoindian groups utilized plant resources
more frequently than was previously thought (Meltzer and Smith 1986).
Domestic sites from the Paleoindian period are not well understood. Paleoindians selected high -
quality lithics for tools, and many Paleoindian sites found in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain are
linked to important source areas (Goodyear 1979). The high degree of curation in the tool
assemblage (and the low frequency of undisputed diagnostics) causes problems in the recognition
of Paleoindian assemblages. Key diagnostics of this period are fluted and unfluted lanceolate
projectile points. Formal flake tools, such as endscrapers, gravers, retouched blades, and burins,
are also associated with this period (Gardner 1974).
Over the course of the Paleoindian period, fluted point forms underwent a general reduction in
size, and true fluting gave way to basal thinning. Locally, terminal Paleoindian assemblages are
identified by Hardaway and Dalton projectile point forms, characterized as broad, thin, triangular
bifaces with deeply concave bases and shallow side notches (Coe 1964), which are thought to date
ca. 10,500-9,800 B.P. (Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway complex, consisting of Dalton -like points
and preforms, has been found in the lowest levels of the Hardaway and Haw River sites in the
Piedmont of North Carolina (Claggett and Cable 1982; Coe 1964).
Archaic Period (9,900 - 3000 B.P.)
The Archaic period is characterized by exploitation of fauna, including large animals, and wild
plant resources, which became increasingly stabilized and broad based during the Holocene.
Settlement patterns are presumed to reflect a high degree of mobility, making use of seasonally
available resources in different areas of the Southeast. Caldwell (1958) termed this scheduled
hunter -forager adaptation to the environment "Primary Forest Efficiency." Group size gradually
increased during this period, culminating in a complex and populous society in the Late Archaic.
Each of the Archaic periods appears to have been lengthy and successful in adapting contemporary
technology to prevailing climatic and environmental conditions of the time.
Diagnostic markers of the Archaic period include a variety of side and corner notched projectile
point types such as Kirk/Palmer, bifurcates (i.e., Lecroy, St. Albans), and later, stemmed projectile
point types such as Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and Savannah River (Coe 1964; Kneberg
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 14

i TrRC
1956). By the Middle Archaic, groundstone items such as axes, atlatl weights, and grinding stones
become more commonplace. In parts of the Southeast, certain changes occurred during the
Terminal Archaic, including an increased focus on riverine resources, and the introduction of
ceramic (fiber -tempered wares) and soapstone vessels.
During the Early and Middle Archaic, diagnostic artifacts reflect widespread styles indicating
population movements or adoption of successful adaptations by distantly related groups (Coe
1964). In the Late Archaic, there was an increasing localization of artifact styles. Villages, as
reflected by increasing site size, became more common, but few recognizable Archaic structures
have been identified to date. Although the beginnings of horticulture appeared during the Late
Archaic, the importance of cultigens for subsistence was probably minimal (Yarnell and Black
1985).
The Early Archaic, ca. 9900-8000 B.P., seems to reflect a continuation of the Paleoindian period
hunting and foraging lifestyle, but utilized modern game species. The time boundary between
Paleoindian and Early Archaic is marked by a 200-300-year period of extreme extended drought
in the Southeast, and thus probably reflects adjustments to distinctly different environmental
conditions (Gunn 1992). O'Steen (1983) includes bifurcates, Big Sandy, Dalton, Kirk Corner
Notched, and Kirk Stemmed projectile point types as markers of the Early Archaic throughout the
Southeast, and all are known to occur in North Carolina, albeit in different quantities (Coe 1964).
Little is known about the non-lithic tools such as traps, snares, nets, and basketry that are
perishable, but must have also contributed to the overall toolkit.
The Middle Archaic, ca. 8000-5000 B.P., can be distinguished from the Early Archaic by the
increase in groundstone artifacts and a less diverse chipped stone tool kit. Biface types diagnostic
of this period include Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford types (Coe 1964; Blanton and
Sassaman 1989). It is assumed that population density increased during the Middle Archaic, but
small hunting and gathering bands probably still formed the primary social and economic units.
Larger sites tend to occur near water, but numerous small sites appearing as dispersed upland
scatters are also characteristic of the Middle Archaic. Hallmarks of the Middle Archaic are the
predominance of expedient lithic tools, increased use of locally occurring lithic raw materials (e.g.,
quartz), and seasonal transience (Blanton 1983; Sassaman 1983).
The Late Archaic is generally dated about 5000-3000 B.P., during which some groups lived for
long periods of time in single, strategically placed locations. Existing information suggests that
the population during this period was relatively dense, and that the largest settlements occurred
along the major river systems bisecting the Fall Line and Coastal Plain, where shellfish were
gathered (Claflin 1931; Michie 1973). Savannah River Stemmed (Coe 1964) and Otarre Stemmed
(Keel 1976) projectile points and knives are the among most common diagnostic biface types
found; however, steatite bowls, bone pins, and other artifact types are also indicative of this period.
Ceramic technology was also present during the Late Archaic but was not yet utilized by people
living in the Piedmont.
Woodland Period (3,000 -1000 B.P.)
Woodland occupations are marked by increasing sedentism, the widespread adoption of pottery,
and an increase in horticultural activities. Subsistence strategies were a continuation of earlier
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 15

A% TrRC
hunting and foraging; however, there was an increased reliance on the cultivation of native plants
(Yarnell and Black 1985; Griffin 1967). Religious life, as evidenced by increased ceremonial
paraphernalia including burial mounds and elaborate ornamental items, became more sophisticated
during the Woodland period. Large triangular projectile points exhibiting concave bases including
Badin Crude Triangular, Yadkin Large Triangular, Transylvania Triangular, and Garden Creek
Triangular (Coe 1964; Keel 1976; Wauchope 1966) styles are diagnostic of the Woodland period,
as are smaller square -stemmed styles including Swannanoa Stemmed, Plott Short Stemmed, or
Gypsy Stemmed (Keel 1976; Oliver 1985). This change in point style may be linked with the
introduction of the bow and arrow weapon in the eastern United States.
During the Woodland Period, ceramics became more refined and regionally differentiated,
particularly with respect to temper, paste, and surface decoration. However, ceramic types of this
period are not well understood in the project area and a plethora of contradictory information
exists. In general, Early and Middle Woodland styles of Georgia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina Piedmont include Kellogg, Dunlap, Deptford/Cartersville, and Badin/Yadkin series
(Anderson 1985; Anderson and Joseph 1988; Caldwell 1958; Trinkley 1983, 1988; Ward and
Davis 1999; Wauchope 1966). According to Anderson and Joseph (1988) little is known about the
Woodland period in the Carolina piedmont, although a continuation of typical coastal plain
sequences has been documented as far inland as the fall line. In comparison to previous periods, it
appears that site density increases considerably during the Early Woodland period. A settlement
pattern characterized by relatively permanent river -bottom base camps and specialized upland
exploitation camps is inferred (Mathis 1979). Ward (1983), however, argues for a more sedentary
and undifferentiated pattern.
The Middle Woodland period is characterized by an intensification of long-distance trade
throughout much of eastern North America, but there is little evidence for direct participation of
local groups in the classic Hopewell interaction sphere exchange network. Horticulture is thought
to have assumed increasing importance, and the cultivation of maize may have been initiated at
this time, although it did not gain prominence until the subsequent Late Woodland and
Mississippian periods. Numerous large and small sites have been found dating to this period,
suggesting periodic aggregation and dispersion or a village/base camp specialization dichotomy in
the settlement patterning. Ceramic artifacts dating to this period include Connestee ceramics,
which can be identified by their thin -walled vessels that have a fine sandy paste and plain, simple
stamped, or brushed surface treatments (although other surface treatments may occur as well).
Also found during this period is the Yadkin series defined in the North Carolina Piedmont, which
include coarse sand— or crushed quartz —tempered cord- and fabric -impressed surface treatments,
as well as check -stamped ceramics.
In many parts of the Southeast, the Late Woodland occupations are marked by increasing
sedentism and improvements in food storage and preparation technologies and the development of
complex tribal and chiefdom level political forms. Throughout much of the Piedmont, the Late
Woodland period marks the later stages of the Yadkin-Uwharrie sequence proposed by Coe
(1964). Uwharrie ceramics include Plain, Brushed, Cord -Marked, Net -Impressed, Fabric -
Impressed, Simple -Stamped, and Curvilinear Complicated -Stamped types and are tempered with
sand, quartz, and sometimes other crushed mineral inclusions (Anderson et al. 1996). Late
Woodland sites across most of the Carolina Piedmont are comparatively rare. Anderson and Joseph
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 16

A% TrRC
(1988; see also Anderson et al. 1996) suggest that at least in the upper Savannah River drainage,
Cartersville and Connestee ceramics may extend later in time than previously thought, which may
account for the paucity of identified Late Woodland sites in the area.
Mississippian Period (A.D. 1000 - 450)
The Mississippian period is marked by a rise of ceremonialism, large public constructions, the
development of maize agriculture, and a more rigid social organization. Flat-topped temple
mounds and a more highly organized village structure developed during this period, including
central villages surrounded by smaller villages, hamlets, and isolated family settlements (Ferguson
1971). Major Mississippian centers have been identified along the Fall Line and include
Hollywood and Lawton near Augusta, Santee Indian Mound on the Santee River, Mulberry and
Adamson near Camden, and Town Creek along the Pee Dee River.
Artifacts that are diagnostic of the Mississippian period include small triangular projectile points
and ceramic wares distinct from the Woodland ceramic types. Ceramic styles have allowed for the
differentiation of this period into subdivisions and possible cultural areas. There is increasing
evidence that territorial boundaries between chiefdoms were closely maintained during the
Mississippian period. The Belmont, Adamson, Town Creek, McDowell, and Mulberry phases
comprise the Mississippian period developments (earliest to latest) in the South Carolina
Piedmont, while those in the southern part of the North Carolina Piedmont are part of the Pee Dee
culture, which includes the Teal, Town Creek, and Leak phases (Ward and Davis 1999). European
conquest brought an end to the Mississippian lifestyle, although many relics of the material
trappings, belief systems, and social structure of classic Mississippian society lingered into the
eighteenth century.
3.2 European Contact
There is no clear separation between the prehistoric and early historic Native American
occupations of the region, since many of these groups continued a traditional lifeway during the
initial influx of European settlement and colonization. Nevertheless, relatively rapid changes were
wrought as Euro-American influence and settlements permeated the interior. Some of the late
Mississippian manifestations such as Lamar are known to have continued into European
exploration and early colonization; however, societies were rapidly transformed by disease,
warfare, trade, and forced population movements soon after sustained Euro-American contact and
settlement.
Sixteenth -century exploration into the Carolinas by the Spaniards revealed that the major Native
American polity was Cofitachequi, located on the Wateree River near present-day Camden, South
Carolina (DePratter 1989). Hudson and DePratter's (1984) reconstruction of the route of the 1540
Hernando de Soto expedition indicates that de Soto and his men traveled from the Savannah River
to the confluence of the Saluda and Broad rivers, then south along the Congaree to the Wateree,
where they encountered their first town since leaving the provinces of Cofaqui and Patofa in
Georgia.
Currently, it is believed, that the first Euro-American intrusion into western North Carolina took
place in 1540, when de Soto's expedition passed through the area. Several different reconstructions
of de Soto's route have been proposed, but it is likely that the de Soto expedition followed the
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 17

A% TrRC
Catawba River into North Carolina (Hudson 1997). One of his stops was the village of Joara, which
is known as the Berry Site, approximately 40 miles north of the project tract in Burke County. Juan
Pardo, a later Spanish explorer who traversed much of the same area in an expedition also stopped
at the village of Joara. There his men build an architectural compound known as Cuenca, which
was identified archaeologically as burned buildings and large pit features. In 2013, the remains of
a fort, known as Fort San Juan, were uncovered. Fort San Juan is the first known European
settlement in the United States (Beck et al. 2016).
Although the Spanish did not have a permanent presence in the region, the effects of the initial
forays and the establishment of forts and coastal settlements that traded with interior tribes
probably led to the collapse of the Mississippian chiefdoms. By the seventeenth century, a variety
of cultural groups existed in small, autonomous, or semi -autonomous political units (Waddell
1980).
Although actual contact with interior tribes was rare in the seventeenth century, disruptions caused
by the European presence on the continent (war, introduction of trade goods, disease, enslavement)
altered the native cultures. During the seventeenth century, the English began to expand their
settlements south from Jamestown, seeking to influence the loyalties of the native populations in
the process. British traders impacted the Cherokee Nation from the Carolinas and Virginia and
exerted steady pressure on the missions of the South Carolina coast until the Spanish found
themselves unable to maintain their presence there (Spalding 1977). Charles Town was founded
in 1670 and the Spanish were never again able to maintain a foothold in the Carolinas.
3.3 Historical Context of the Survey Area
Historic Native American Context
Whatever the precise routes of these explorers, the ancestral Cherokee and Catawba first
encountered Europeans in the mid-16th century. The introduction of European diseases to which
the native populations had little resistance caused a major reduction in Native American population
levels and extensive changes in political organization. Elsewhere in the Southeast, the
fragmentation and reformation of political groups resulted in a general decrease in social
complexity and the total disappearance of some prehistoric societies (Smith 1987). Although the
Cherokee underwent substantial disruption, they maintained political autonomy and were a major
political and economic power on the expanding frontier of Euro-American settlement.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Cherokee controlled the mountains and part
of the western Piedmont, while the Catawba occupied the southwestern Piedmont of North
Carolina and adjacent South Carolina. Early historical accounts of the Cherokee by William
Bartram in 1781 (Bartram 1791), and similar accounts of the Catawba, describe cabins that reflect
European influence and cultivated crops of beans and corn.
European -American Context. European settlement of the Carolina backcountry began during the
mid- 1700s as large numbers of Scotch -Irish and Germans were attracted to the region in search of
land. These peoples emigrated overland, primarily from Pennsylvania, or up the waterways of
South Carolina in search of new areas of prime farming land. The lack of navigable rivers leading
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 18

4% TrRC
from the North Carolina coast to the interior inhibited the wave -like expansion of European
settlements that typified other colonies.
As Europeans moved west and began to clear and settle the lands, clashes with the local Indian
tribes became commonplace. Although no known Indian towns lay within modern Gaston County,
the lands most likely represented hunting territory for either the Cherokee or Catawba Indians. The
Cherokee frequently raided white settlements during the historic period and were attacked by the
settlers in retaliation (Powell 1989). Likewise, the Catawba were active in the area, with settled
towns located to the east and south of the project area, mainly along the Catawba River.
Although the region had been visited by several explorers beginning in the sixteenth century,
European settlement of the area did not begin in earnest until the 1760s, due to the difficulties in
acquiring land titles and the unrest caused by the Seven Years War. Most early settlers emigrated
west from established eastern settlements and from the north, particularly from Virginia and
Pennsylvania, and included Scotch -Irish, English, Welsh, German, Irish, and Scots (Phifer 1977).
Most of these groups relied on subsistence farming, growing mainly corn and some tobacco, along
with limited production of naval stores and other woodland products (Novick 1997).
A continuing influx of settlers to the area after the Revolution, especially of Scotch -Irish decent,
necessitated the formation of additional counties. What is currently known as Gaston County
began as part of Tryon County, established in 1768 from Mecklenburg County. Tryon County was
further subdivided into two counties — Lincoln and Rutherford — in 1779. Gaston County was
named in honor of William Gaston, a Congressman and North Carolina State Supreme Court
Justice. Dallas was chosen as the original seat of Gaston County but was moved to Gastonia in
1911.
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
Agriculture remained the primary industry in the county well into the nineteenth century. Local
farmers grew corn, wheat and other subsistence crops as well as raised cattle and hogs. By the late
nineteenth century, cotton had become an important crop, becoming the most important cash crop
in the region by the 1920s. By the time of the Civil War, cotton became the principal source of
income, with several textile mills opening just after the War (Clary and Harlan 2006).
The Civil War came to Gaston County, with citizens fighting on both sides of the war. Although
no recorded battles took place in Gaston County raiding parties wreaked havoc on the local farms,
and money and supplies were scarce for those left behind. The rate of desertion by the end of the
war was high, as men tried to return to their properties to keep their families from starvation.
By the end of the Civil War, much of the South saw a complete breakdown in the economic, social,
and cultural fabric. The plantation system of agriculture that dominated the economy prior to the
Civil War were both labor-intensive economic systems that had relied on slavery (mines and mills
also utilized slave labor, a similar labor problem for returning manufacturing concerns). With the
end of the Civil War, the system of free labor was abolished, and the agricultural industry began
to lose viability. Recovery from the economic depression that began during the Civil War was
slow during the Reconstruction period. Large agricultural farms had decreased in number, while
the number of smaller tenant or sharecropper farms greatly increased. Small yeoman and
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 19

A% TrRC
sharecropper farmsteads replaced the plantation system and its ruling planter class that could no
longer survive without slave labor.
By the late nineteenth century, textile production had become a very important part of the region's
economy. The first cotton mill had opened in the county before the Civil War and was quickly
followed by several others (National Association of Cotton Manufacturers 1957). The first railroad
line was also in place before the War (the Carolina Central Railway), followed by the Piedmont
and Northern, and the Carolina and Northwestern. By 1909 there were over 60 mills in the county
(Hearn 1909) and transportation infrastructure was vital to the area.
In 1929, Gastonia was the scene of one of the most influential labor strikes of the twentieth century.
The Loray Mill Strike was instigated by a reaction to lay-offs and wage reductions that plagued
southern textile mills after the First World War. Labor organizers from the National Textile
Workers Union (NTWU) and the Communist Party sought to organize disenchanted workers in
the spring of 1929, but protests were met with brutal police reaction, and cooperating workers were
blacklisted from employment, leaving them worse off (McShane 2014). By the summer of 1929
the movement was put down, two labor activists had been murdered, suspects of the murder
acquitted, and the attempt to organize workers ceased. The events were a catalyst for regional
rejection of organized labor. Cotton and textile production continued to increase in the first half of
the century, before out -sourcing led to a steep decline. Today, the service industry occupies most
of the workforce, followed by manufacturing, retail trade, and construction (Charlotte Regional
Partnership 2010).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 20

�11'k 7
TrRC
4.0 BACKGROUND LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH
TRC personnel conducted a background literature and records search via the OSA to locate any
archaeological sites and previous investigations located directly within the APE and provide
context for the types of cultural resources that might be encountered in the Project area. Historic
maps of the Project area were also referenced before the survey fieldwork.
Based on the data collected, TRC's survey expectations for the likelihood of archaeological sites
included, but were not limited to, the potential documentation of prehistoric lithic scatters and
historic refuse scatters based on the sites found within one mile.
4.1 Resources and Investigations within a 1.6 km (1 mi) radius of the study area.
Background research indicates that seven previously recorded archaeological sites are within 1.6
km (1 mi) radius of the APE (Figure 9, Table 2). None of these are situated within the current APE.
All of the sites with prehistoric components were indeterminate limited activity lithic sites. The
historic sites were limited to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and were domestic or
agricultural in nature. One of these, the Roberts Log House (31GS221), was determined to not be
eligible for the NRHP based on its archaeological potential but was considered potentially eligible
based on its architectural merits. Aside from that, these historic and prehistoric sites were all
ineligible for NRHP inclusion. Sites 31GS385 and 31LN223 are historic cemeteries, African
American and Euro-American respectively and have been unassessed for NRHP eligibility.
Three previous investigations took place within one mile of the APE (Table 3). The largest survey
encompassed just over 2,200 ac for an investigation of the Highway 150 corridor (Baker 1992).
Four archaeological sites (31GS319-322) were recorded as a result of this survey. The remaining
two surveys were for a commercial property (Drucker and Reid 2006) and the previously
mentioned 2018 cultural resource survey for the Carolina Lithium Project (Norris and Styer 2021).
The Drucker and Reid (2006) survey yielded no new resources, and the Norris and Styer (2021)
survey recorded five new archaeological resources (3 1 GS3 90-3 94).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 21

4% TrRC
Table 2. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of the study
area.
Site No.
Time Period
Component
Site Type
NRHP Eligibility
31GS219
Prehistoric
Indeterminate Lithic
Limited Activity
Not Eligible
31GS220
Multicomponent
Indeterminate Lithic/
19th C.-Present
Indeterminate/
Domestic
Not Eligible
31GS221
Historic
19'h C.-Present
Roberts Log House
Potentially Eligible
31GS222
Prehistoric
Indeterminate Lithic
Limited Activity
Not Eligible
31GS385
Historic
191 C.-Present
African American Cemetery
Unassessed
31GS390
Multicomponent
Indeterminate Lithic/
19ffi C.-20'h C.
Indeterminate/ Domestic
Not Eligible
31GS392
Historic
20'h C.
Agricultural
Not Eligible
31LN223
Historic
19' C.-20'h C.
Euro-American Cemetery
Unassessed
Table 3. Previous investigations within a one -mile radius of the study area.
ER Number
Author(s)
Title
Acreage
Archaeological Investigations of the Highway 150 Corridor,
ER 92-7574
C.M. Baker
Cherryville to Lincolnton, Gaston and Lincoln Counties, North
2,200.83
Carolina Department of Transportation Project R-617
ER 06-1833
L. M. Drucker &
Cultural Resources Assessment - Cherryville
26.4
J. D. Reid
Commercial Property ECSPro'ect. No. 14-3451
S. Norris &
Archaeological Survey for the
ER 18-0800
K. Styer
Piedmont Lithium Mine Project, Gaston County, North
963
Carolina
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 22

TrRC
_JTa
l 283 �-' '�� Larnding
1rFp
eel y Crotisc C a9 �
_ 1 -
�`".
Os`� ' - �` rgfl
220
`� ♦
�
a �GS222 � `
GS221\, GS195e_ LN222
GS2.19 %411\1224'
¢ y LN22;
r �. 1
GS392eS391 ►
♦ ` GS 90'. GS393
— GS394
J17COInton,will
Besse. City ,
♦ , ` N
k V S i
\ - GS385 7
300IN C
r c'
5
—0
NOVEMBER 2021
4S c�sf
C� Cultural Resources APE r »«
KennAcky L'!-���
0 Previously Recorded Archaeological Site
0 2,500 5,000
j — i 1-Mile Search Radius
Project Location N"orlh
FEET 0 LISGS 7.5' Quadrangle Boundary
0 750 1,500 s�rn
Notes: ca"V ina
METERS 1- Map Projection HAD 1983 S1atePlane North Carolina PIPS 3200 Feel, Foot US Geomp,
2. Baseri acquired from Esri "USATopo Maps" online service layer, 7.5' Quadrangles: Lincolnton West (1979)
1:60,000 1" = 5,000' (Quad ID35061-1)3 and Bessemer City (1979) Quad ID: 35081-C3, North Carolina Ow
Figure 9. Previously recorded resources in the vicinity of the project area.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 23

4% TrRC
4.2 Historic Maps
Historic maps were consulted during the background research effort to determine if any homesites
or potential structural remains were likely to be present within the Project area. The boundaries of
the APE were georeferenced onto historic USGS topographic maps of the area. Maps dated from
1909 and 1973 were consulted (Figures 10 and 11). The structures present within the APE on these
maps are summarized in Table 4 and circled in Figures 10 and 11.
All the topographic maps show the area as being largely rural and sparsely populated. Little to no
commercial areas are present in the area. Current maps present similar depictions of the area; more
residences and the improvements of roads occur within and adjacent to the APE.
Table 4. Summary of results of the historic macs research.
Structure
Year
Status
1
1909
Not relocated; adjacent to 31GS401
2
1909, 1973
Not relocated
3
1909
31GS411
4
1909
Not relocated
5
1909, 1973
Structure present in location
6
1909
Structure present in location
7
1909, 1973
Standing house with five outbuildings
8
1909, 1973
31GS399
9
1973
Structure present in location
10
1973
Structure not relocated
11
1973
Standing house with two outbuildings
12
1973
Structure with outbuildings
13
1973
31GS405
14
1973
Structure present in location
15
1973
Structure present in location
16
1973
Structure not relocated
17
1973
Structure present in location
18
1973
Structure present in location
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 24

TrRc
io
JN
S.
J
I 3�
am•x__ _-� 1
NOVFMRFR 2091
we.tt
2 0 Cultural Resources APE
(ITS Kentuclry F"irp,L�2a
0 Structure within APE
0 1,500 3,000
Project Location
FEET C'mv na
0 450 900 south
Notes CSnvlrna
METERS T. Map Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane North Carolina PIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US Geor„ia
2. Basemap acquired from NC_1-inwlnlon_162572_1909_62500geo.tif
1:36,300 1' - 3,000'
Figure 10. The APE georeferenced on the 1911 Lincolnton USGS topographic quadrang'.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 25

4% Trmqc
;4 I
'~,' c n ca l � � � � � � "�' V .,F� Lz�ir•2r.
-. � e.- r.as�•o�r
a- hl l
wee4"rnwd
10
7
JL
= �� �'Y$Y --` �� ' I'll/� }'✓J / -
Z
15.
<�� f 14 rd��., �� ��, 1
u -�� l
17
a
W 18
`�� fSf f _ sno �i'''✓✓� i. .� I� `' ` �r �/\ %` ! �iH°t>h f2 CC!!+, —��� .
y��� �J ♦ �,`' �� �`'f�i�/ �( Y/�r�/'p 1. dF /lJ�� � ! /�'�'_'�., 4Vj ���/J.
I � �� f _ � ,�Gt / -/ /� �. � \.y � IY1. i i �f l �J- �� t •,,y � r\ 11 1- -' �� _ J �j��//}�-!� 1� � 1
:.
R _ _
M011FMR FR 771
0 Cultural Resources APE
F,Vp.rr
Jwginia
lic nlurdT }irginia
0 Structure within APE
0 1,500 3 000
Tennessee
Project Location 1o'ol7h
FEET
r
0 450 900
sourh
Notes:
C.'arnli !u
METERS
1 Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
Georgia
2, Basenap acquired from NC -Bessemer City-163738-1973-24000-geo.tif and
1:36,000 1— 3,000,
NC_LinccInton West_ 162670_1973_24000_geo,tif
kL
Figure 11. The APE georeferenced on the 1973 Lincolnton West USGS topographic quadrangle.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 26

TrRC
5.0 METHODS
5.1 Archaeological Survey Methods
TRC personnel surveyed the APE on foot utilizing systematic shovel testing to test for
archaeological deposits. The project was divided into high and low probability areas (see Figure
2). High probability areas consisted of upland ridges with less than 15 percent slope. Shovel testing
was conducted at 30-m intervals in a grid pattern and were typically oriented along landforms to
ensure coverage of the upland ridgelines. Shovel test probes (STPs) measured 30 x 30 centimeters
(cm) (11.8 x 11.8 inches [in]) in diameter and were excavated to a maximum of 75 cm (29.5 in) in
depth or whenever subsoil was reached. If cultural materials were recovered from an STP,
additional STPs were delineated in each cardinal direction at 10 or 15-m intervals until two
negative shovel tests were encountered in each direction. Low probability consisted of areas with
more than 15 percent slope, floodplains that are outside the proj ect's limits of disturbance, and/or
previously disturbed areas (e.g., modern home sites, yards). These areas were surveyed via
systematic pedestrian walkover to identify above ground features such as chimney falls,
cemeteries, or artifacts on the surface. Visual inspection was supplemented with judgmentally
placed shovel tests. If surface visibility was greater than 50 percent, the area was visually inspected
for artifacts at 10-m intervals. Shovel tests were not excavated outside the predetermined project
APE.
Soil was screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth to insure uniform artifact recovery.
Artifacts would have been bagged separately by shovel test and marked with appropriate
provenience and depth information. Separate notes were maintained for each shovel test excavated,
and included grid locations, depth, soil stratigraphy, soil description, and notes on artifact
recovery.
In -field data recording was conducted using a hand-held GPS unit. Notes were maintained using
standard archaeological nomenclature (Munsell soil colors, terrain descriptions, notes on findings
and stratigraphy, etc.) The Project was documented with digital camera equipment. The field notes,
maps, photographs, and other technical materials generated during this archaeological survey will
be curated at an appropriate facility.
5.2 Laboratory Methods
All artifacts recovered were cleaned, identified, and analyzed using analytical techniques
summarized below. Following analysis, all artifacts were bagged according to site, provenience,
and specimen number. Following the North Carolina guidelines established for artifact curation,
only acid -free plastic bags and artifact tags were used.
Only two lithic artifacts were recovered during the current project. The historic artifacts recovered
were washed or otherwise cleaned as appropriate. They were separated by material type and further
sorted into functional groups. For historic artifacts, glass was further sorted into window, bottle,
or other glass. Temporal assignments were based on chronologically sensitive attributes (i.e.,
maker's marks; glass color) using established references for historic materials, including Noel
Hume (1970), South (1977), and Miller (1991, 2000), among others.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 27

A% TrRC
5.3 NRHP Eligibility Criteria
According to 36 CFR 60.4 (eCFR 2017b NRHP 2002), a cultural resource eligible for listing in
the NRHP are defined as buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts that have "integrity,"
and that meet one or more of the criteria outlined below.
• Criterion A (Event). Association with one or more events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history.
• Criterion B (Person). Association with the lives of persons significant in the past.
• Criterion C (Design/Construction). Embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction; or representation of the work of a master; or possession
of high artistic values; or representation of a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction.
• Criterion D (Information Potential). Properties that yield, or are likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
Criterion D is most often (but not exclusively) associated with archaeological resources. To
be considered eligible under Criterion D, sites must be associated with specific or general
patterns in the development of the region. Therefore, sites become significant when they are
seen within the larger framework of local or regional development.
5.4 Curation
Artifacts will be returned to the landowners once analysis and reporting are completed. Artifacts
that are unwanted by the landowner will be curated at Office of State Archaeology Research Center
(OSARC) in North Carolina. Accession numbers will be obtained for artifacts that will be curated
or for artifacts where the landowners have not decided on whether they want them returned.
Accession numbers were not obtained when landowners expressed a desire to have the artifacts
returned.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 28

4% TrRC
6.0 SURVEY RESULTS
6.1 Archaeological Survey Results
The Phase I archaeological survey was conducted in July, August, September, and November
2021. Based on probability modeling and in field site conditions, approximately 96 percent (898
ac) of the project area was considered to have a high potential for cultural resources. Of these 898
ac, approximately 115 ac were pedestrian surveyed due to high surface visibility. If necessary, the
pedestrian surveyed areas were supplemented by judgmental shovel testing or shovel testing at 50-
m intervals. The remainder of the APE (31 ac) consisted of low probability areas that were subject
to visual inspection. A total of 2,187 STPs were excavated, 34 of which were positive for cultural
materials (Appendix A). As a result of the survey seventeen archaeological sites were identified,
four of which are historic cemeteries. Their descriptions and subsequent NRHP recommendations
are described in the following sections. Artifact counts and descriptions can be found in Appendix
B.
31GS398
Field Site Number: JAD072121A NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Lithic Isolate Elevation: 900 ft. AMSL
Components: Indeterminate Landform: Upland Plain
UTM Coordinates: E470040, N3917076 (NAD 27) Soil Type: Appling sandy loam
Site Dimensions: 5 m N/S x 5m E/W Vegetation: Secondary Growth
Artifact Depth: Surface No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 4/0
Site 31GS398 was identified as a prehistoric lithic isolate with one quartz biface fragment
recovered from the surface of a dirt road in the center of a cleared forest (Figure 12). The site is
on an upland plain and an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek is located approximately 360
meters to the southeast.
Pedestrian survey of the road and four shovel tests were excavated to determine the extent of the
site. The road in which the surface find was recovered generally runs north to south and was subject
the pedestrian survey (Figure 13). The site was delineated to the east and west with four shovel
tests at 10-meter intervals. A typical soil profile consisted of 20 cm of gray (10YR 6/1) sand,
overlying 20 cmbs (20-40 cmbs) of olive gray (5Y 4/2) sand and terminating with 10 cm (40-50
cmbs) of olive yellow (2.5YR 6/8) sandy clay loam (Figure 14). No additional artifacts were
recovered from the site.
Site 31GS398 is a lithic isolate with no integrity and is unlikely to contribute significant
information of the prehistory of the area. Therefore, the site is recommended not eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 29

i TrRC
me
C7
(`,
0
Y'AMOLIN
0 Cultural Resources APE • High Surface Visibility
0 Newly Recorded Site 0 Disturbed
0 50 100 — 2-ft Contour
FEET
0 15 30
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection, NAB 1983 StalePlane Norlh Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1" =100' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 12. Site 31 GS398 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
30

TrRC
Figure 13. Overview of site 31 GS398, facing south.
Figure 14. Typical soil profile on site 31GS398.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 31

4% TrRC
31GS399
Field Site Number: JAD072221A
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic House Site
Elevation: 900 ft. AMSL
Components: 201 Century
Landform: Ridgetop and ridge slope
UTM Coordinates: E4701516, N3916499 (NAD 27)
Soil Type: Chewacla loam, Lloyd sandy clay loam,
and Pacolet sandy loam
Site Dimensions: 45 m N/S x 85 m E/W
Vegetation: Hardwood forest
Artifact Depth: Surface/ 0-15cmbs
No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 29/6
Site 31GS399 is a historic house site dating to the twentieth century with the remains of three
foundations (Foundations 1-3) present on the surface (Figure 15). The site is within a hardwood
forest on a ridgetop and slope, overlooking Beaverdam Creek approximately 75 meters to the
south. St. Marks Church Road is directly east.
Foundation 1 consists of a concrete and stone foundation with a brick chimney fall and is located
approximately 15 meters west of St. Marks Church Road (Figure 16). The basement of the
structure has been dugout. The brick chimney fall is along the southern edge of the foundation and
is made up of machine -made bricks. A galvanized metal pipe is welded within a cement rectangular
pad along the western edge. Foundation 2 is a concrete slab on the ridge slope to the west of
Foundation 1 (Figure 17). Foundation 3 consists of cinderblocks and is at the westernmost edge of
the site on the ridge slope (Figure 18).
The northwest corner of Foundation 1 was determined as the datum of the site (Figure 19). A
typical soil profile consisted of 20 cm of very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) sand terminating with 20 cm
(20-40 cmbs) of light red (lOR 7/8) sandy clay loam (Figure 20). A total of 29 shovel tests were
excavated while delineating the site; six were positive for historic artifacts.
Artifacts present on the site that were not collected include complete and fragmented machine -
made bricks from the chimney, concrete, cinderblocks, and cut stones. Dateable artifacts recovered
and observed date to the site to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (see Appendix B). A
structure is depicted on historic maps from 1911 to 1976 (see Figures 10 and 11). A USDA soil
survey map dated 1909 shows a structure in the site vicinity (Figure 21) and an aerial map dated
1938 from the Gaston County tax assessor GIS depicts several structures in the vicinity (Figure
22). These are present on aerial maps at least until 1979. The structures appear to have been
demolished by 1984 (Figure 23).
Site 31GS399 is a historic house site dating to the twentieth century with the remnants of a house
and two outbuildings. The site is a common site type in North Carolina and has no research
potential or integrity and is unlikely to contribute significant information on the history of the area.
Therefore, the site is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 32

TRIC
DECEMBER 2021
ii est
O Cultural Resources APE 2-ft Contour s rhi»«r
A`entvckiG"rrgTniu
0 Newly Recorded Site o Positive STP
0 50 100 © Slope ® Disturbed Te""NSSec
Project Location .•1`or�fYo
FEET 0 Low Probability 4 Slope C•:a,Yillnr!
0 15 30 .5,,wh
Carallrza
METERS Notes Georgia
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 100' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 15. Site 31 GS399 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
33

ti
' i`.� "�-'' '► �,� mad - - t � ��

TrRC
Figure 18. Overview of Foundation 2 on site 31GS399, facing northeast.
Figure 19. Portion of cinderblock foundation for Foundation 3.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 35

A TrRC
Figure 20. Typical soil profile on site 31GS399.
c
R� f
Cc
t
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 36

A% TrRC
Figure 21. USDA soil survey map dated 1909 depicting location of structure in the vicinity of
site 31GS399.
Figure 22. Aerial map dated 1938 depicting multiple structures in the vicinity of site 31GS399.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 37

TrRC
w }�gA
t A6 +*
Figure 23. Aerial map dated 1984 structures associated with site 31 GS399 having been
demolished.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 38

4% TrRC
31GS401
Field Site Number: JAD072321A NRHP Recommendation: Unassessed
Site Type: Historic Cemetery Elevation: 860 ft. AMSL
Components: 191 Century Landform: Ridge Slope
UTM Coordinates: E470619, N3916602 (NAD 27) Soil Type: Appling sandy loam
Site Dimensions: 10 m N/S x 5 m E/W Vegetation: Fallow Field
Grave Goods Present: No Minimum Number of Burials: 7
Site 31 GS401 is a historic cemetery identified by the presence of six fieldstone markers and one
granite headstone (Figures 24-26). The cemetery measures 10 in (north -south) by 5 in (east -west)
and contains a minimum of seven graves. Site 31GS401 is on the eastern side of a ridge slope
approximately 160 in west of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek. The vegetation consists
of fallow field with a stand of oak trees encompassing the cemetery, along with patch of secondary
growth directly to the east. The cemetery itself appears to be marginally maintained with no
overgrowth or weeds.
Internments are generally arranged in a distinct row. The graves are marked by a larger fieldstone,
likely representing a headstone at the western edge of the burial; some of the graves have a
footstone in the form of a smaller fieldstone placed to the east. This is a traditional alignment for
Christian burials in historic cemeteries. A granite headstone was found leaning against a tree
stump. The inscription provided a death date of 1855 and had a last name of Hoard; because the
headstone was broken, no other information could be obtained. There was a depression near the
location of the headstone, so it appears to be associated with that grave.
A search of the online database Findagrave.com (accessed August 11, 2021), depicts no cemetery
in the area of Site 31 GS401. The Gaston County GIS database depicts the Edward Baker Cemetery
to the southeast within the floodplain of Beaverdam Creek. This area was subjected to pedestrian
survey, but no evidence of a cemetery was present.
Site 31GS401 is an unnamed historic cemetery dating to the nineteenth century. It is most likely a
family cemetery, but the individuals interred will remain unknown without extensive research. The
condition of the burials cannot be assessed without excavating the site. Therefore, site 31 GS401
remains unassessed for NRHP eligibility.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 39

TRIC
} O
- a o
Cultural Resources APE — 2-ft Contour
Newly Recorded Site 4 Wet
0 50 100 0 Low Probability
FEET
0 15 30
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS U00 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 10{T 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 24. Aerial of site 31 GS4O1, unnamed cemetery.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
U
0
DECEN
iiL"111
V�,
Kem-k,
ia
Tennessec.
cih
Carallrza
Georgia
40

TrRC
o
° °
El El
GENE
Foot stone; Ro ck
Headstone
Area of secon da ry g rowth
Site Boundary
OakTree
Figure 25. Plan map of site 31GS401, unnamed cemetery.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 41

TrRC
Figure 26. Overview of Site 31GS401, unnamed cemetery.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 42

4% TrRC
31GS402
Field Site Number: JAD080521A NRHP Recommendation: Unassessed
Site Type: Historic Cemetery Elevation: 860 ft. AMSL
Components: 181-191 Century Landform: Ridge Slope
UTM Coordinates: E470847, N3917074 (NAD 27) Soil Type: Cecil sandy clay loam and
Pacolet sandy loam
Site Dimensions: 40 m N/S x 40 m E/W Vegetation: Mixed Hardwoods/Pine
Grave Goods Present: No Minimum Number of Burials: Unknown
Site 31GS402 is the Baker Family Cemetery located on a ridgetop overlooking an unnamed
tributary of Beaverdam Creek (Figure 27). The cemetery was identified by the presence of four
headstones and a sign marking the cemetery (Figures 28 and 29). An earthen berm measuring 15
m (north -south) by five m (east -west) is present with the headstones grouped on the northern edge
of the berm. The cemetery is within a mixed pine and hardwood forest directly west of a fallow
field. On the berm, there are several oak trees that are older than the surrounding trees.
The cemetery sign indicates that the land was once owned by Joseph Baker Sr. (c. 1740-1799) and
that this is his probable burial location along with Joseph Baker Jr. (1760-c. 1826), most likely his
son. It also provides information on the headstones at the cemetery including the headstone of
Edward Baker (1791-1880, Son of Joseph Baker Jr.) and his wife Mary Butz Baker (1798-1840),
Ann Sellers, Sarah Sellers, and others.
Two of the granite headstones were leaning against an oak tree and not in their original places.
One was the headstone of Sarah Sellers and the other was engraved, but broken, and no name was
discernable. Edward Baker was represented by a marble headstone and base; the headstone was
broken, and the base was not set in the ground. Mary Butz Baker was represented by a granite
headstone facing to the east and is the only headstone that appears to be in its original position.
Fieldstones are also present on the surface that could have been used as grave markers, but there
is no clear pattern indicating such. There were no depressions were identified within or around the
cemetery.
The cemetery appears to be marginally maintained. The sign is on a wooden post with clear, plastic
covering, and appears to have been professionally made. The berm with headstones and the top of
the berm west of the cemetery is clear of undergrowth, which is in sharp contrast to the thick
undergrowth downslope to the north and west.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 43

TRIC
�-
��
jrP
8� rf
w 1
1 I
� r �
:,. j/r f//
• Y
,.cp
�
tiw
roN
M
00 00
�4 l4jj
i
V
� ' w
� Resources
rn
� I
\1i
Newly Recorded Site
1
FEET
2-ft Contour
METERS
Notes.
Feet, Foot US
Figure 24. Aerial of site 31 GS402.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 44

TrRC
CemeterySign-4Earthern Berm
3 Circular VegetationAno
Tree Line OSite Boundary
Fieldstone
akTree
Headstone
Figure 25. Plan map of site 31 GS402, the Baker Family Cemetery.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 45

TrRC
Figure 26. Overview of site 31 GS402, the Baker Family Cemetery.
A search of the online database Findagrave.com (accessed August 11, 2021), depicts no cemetery
in the area. As mentioned previously, the Edward Baker Cemetery is mapped on the Gaston County
GIS database near site 31GS401. Therefore, it appears that the Edward Baker Cemetery and the
Baker Family Cemetery are one in the same and may have been misplotted on the Gaston County
GIS database.
Site 31GS402, the Baker Family Cemetery, likely dates to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The boundaries of the cemetery could not be completely defined during the survey, thus an area
measuring 1,600 m2 (0.40 ac) has a high potential to contain human burials. TRC recommends that
this area be avoided. It is unknown if the individuals interred at the Baker Family Cemetery have
any local or regional significance. Furthermore, the condition of the burials cannot be assessed
without excavating the site. Therefore, the site 31 GS402 remains unassessed for NRHP eligibility.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 46

TrRC
31GS403
Field Site Number: FS 1
Site Type: Dump Site
Components: 201 Century
UTM Coordinates:: E472125, N3916582 (NAD 83)
Site Dimensions: 10 m N/S x 10 m E/W
Artifact Depth: Surface
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Elevation: 847 ft. AMSL
Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
Soil Type: Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Vegetation: Hardwood Forest
No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 8/0
Site 31GS403 is a historic dump site on the surface, situated on a forested upland approximately
225 m south of Beaverdam Creek (Figures 27 and 28). The site can be dated to the mid -twentieth
century based on the maker's marks of four artifacts (see Appendix B). No structures were present
in the area on available historic topographic maps or aerial photography. Eight STPs were
excavated to delineate the site, but all were negative for cultural materials. Soils within the site
consisted of about 10 cm of reddish brown (5YR 5/3) silty loam over a red (2.5YR 5/6) clay loam
(Figure 29). This site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and no further work is recommended
as it will not provide any additional information to the history of the region (Criterion D). This
determination is based on the site's lack of integrity, as well as the absence of intact subsurface
features and artifacts.
Figure 27. Overview of site 31GS403, facing north.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
47

TrRC
0
0
W �l
!: 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
Cultural Resources APE 0 Negative STP
0 Newly Recorded Site A Historic Feature
0 50 100 Pedestrian Survey ® Disturbed
FEET ©Slope 1 Slope
0 15 30 — 2-ft Contour
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 10c, 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 28. Site 31 GS403 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
WL-111
A`enlucki
Tennessee.
s„rrda
Caro7lraa
Georgia
48

TrRC
Figure 29. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS403.
31 GS404
Field Site Number: FS2 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Dump Site Elevation: 857 ft. AMSL
Components: mid-201 Century Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E472178, N3916621 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 20 m N/S x 20 m E/W Vegetation: Mixed Hardwood Forest
Artifact Depth: Surface No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 9/0
Site 31GS404 is a historic dump site on the surface, situated on a forested upland approximately
205 in south of Beaverdam Creek (Figures 30 and 31). The site can be dated to the mid -twentieth
century based on the maker's marks of two artifacts (see Appendix B). Other materials observed,
but not collected, include machine made bricks, enamel cookware, machine made bottles, and
other twentieth century refuse. No structures were present in the area on available historic
topographic maps or aerial photography. Nine STPs were excavated to delineate the site, but all
were negative for cultural materials. A typical soil profile consisted of about 10 cm of reddish
brown (5YR 5/3) silty loam over a red (2.5YR 5/6) clay loam (Figure 32). This site is not eligible
for listing in the NRHP, and no further work is recommended as it will not provide any additional
information to the history of the region (Criterion D) based on the site's lack of integrity and the
absence of intact subsurface features and artifacts.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 49

TrRC
•
-� �. �. � ram....
11'• y, Y1
,� � Yf _ 1f .... 'i3
�• 1I q f11 y� I "�� y ,�,"
Y
0- � , �1 yI 1f 1I; i1�1' f y4. ' �.f. d : :qy Ir •
••
I
, !
r11 �q� IIfII "�� �q
_ Y'
O
3 f.�'
1 ♦ y
q, ♦
x7r
I
Y, I' I'
� I� Yqr
11*�y�T
;•
'
i���1.
� 'yam �� i�
/ -
-
i
f
31 G5404
3`1 GS4a3
,� .,
IF-
31
O
O O O O
O
O
DECEMBER 2021
Cultural Resources APE o
Negative STP
West
dirhr»«r
0 Newly Recorded Site A
Historic Feature
tienitec�ty
G"trgTniu
0 50 100
Pedestrian Survey ®
Disturbed
Tennessee
FEET
0 Slope 1
Slope
Project Location
.•1'ariYa
C•:ar-- a
a 15 30
— 2-ft Contour
';,wh
Caro7lraa
METERS
Notes
Georgia
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS
3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1" = 100'
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 30. Site 31 GS404 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 50

J' a

TrRC
31GS405
Field Site Numbers: FS3-FS5
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Rural Domestic Farmstead
Elevation: 857-873 ft. AMSL
Components: 201 Century
Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E471606, N3916049 (NAD 83)
Soil Type: Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded and Cecil sandy clay
loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 102 m N/S x 93 m E/W
Vegetation: Hardwood Forest
Artifact Depth: 0-20 cmbs
No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 56/5
Site 31GS405 is a rural domestic farmstead dating to the twentieth century based on structures
present in the location on aerial photography as early as 1938, the USGS 1976 topographic map,
and the maker's marks on two artifacts (See Appendix B). The site is on a forested upland
approximately 490 m south of Beaverdam Creek. It is comprised of a dilapidated shed with farming
equipment, two foundations, and the ruins of two outbuildings (Figures 33-35). A total of 56 STPs
were excavated delineating the site, in which five contained artifacts in the top 20 cm of soil
(Figure 36). A typical soil profile consisted of 16 cm of brown (1 OYR 5/3) clay loam topsoil over
a red (I OR 4/8) clay subsoil (Figure 37). No subsurface features were encountered within the site.
It is recommended that this site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further work is
recommended as it will not provide any additional information to the history of the region
(Criterion D) based on the site's lack of integrity and the absence of intact subsurface features.
Figure 33. Dilapidated shed with farming equipment, facing north.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 52

TRIC
0.. L
0 �
o
+P O
O
vj
O
O..
O O
_
Cultural Resources APE
o
Negative STP
0 Newly Recorded Site
o
Positive STP
0 50 goo
Pedestrian Survey
L
Historic Feature
FEET
0 Low Probability
0
Disturbed
0 15 30
— 2-ft Contour
4
Slope
METERS
Notes.
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1" = 1 M,
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 36. Site 31 GS405 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
X
ry■
O 1 1
rem
54

TrRC
Figure 37. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS405.
31 GS406
Field Site Number: FS6 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Prehistoric Isolated Find Elevation: 856 ft. AMSL
Components: Early Archaic Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E472267, N3916422 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 10 m N/S x 10 m E/W Vegetation: Cultivated
Artifact Depth: Surface No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 9/0
Site 31GS406 is a prehistoric isolated find consisting of a quartz projectile point found on an
eroded dirt road (Figures 38 and 39). The road is on an upland adjacent to a cultivated field,
approximately 315 m south of Beaverdam Creek. Although the point is missing the tip, it is likely
a Palmer point belonging to the Early Archaic period. The dirt road was visually inspected, and
nine STPs were excavated while investigating the site; all of these were negative for cultural
materials. Soils excavated in the area consisted of about 5 cm of reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4) clay
loam over red (2.5YR 5/8) clay subsoil (Figure 40). This site is not eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP as it will not provide any additional information to the prehistory of the region (Criterion
D). This determination is based on the paucity of artifacts, intact subsurface features, and overall
site integrity.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 55

i TrRC
M
0 0
O
O
0
Q
ii est
O Cultural Resources APE 2-ft Contour s rhi»«r
Kenrvck,G"mglnfa
0 Newly Recorded Site o Negative STP
0 50 100 Pedestrian Survey Slope re""�SSe
Projec[Locsrlon n�osfjr
FEET 0 SIOpe IMF
0 15 30 ';,wh
Caro7lraa
METERS Notes Georgia
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 10c, 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 38. Site 31 GS406 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 56

TrRC
Figure 39. Overview of site 31GS406, facing northwest.
Figure 40. Typical soil profile within site 31GS406.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 57

4% TrRC
31GS407
Field Site Number: FS7 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Dump Site Elevation: 885-889 ft. AMSL
Components: mid-201 Century Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E474456, N3914815 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 37 m N/S x 9 m E/W Vegetation: Hardwood Forest
Artifact Depth: 0-15 cmbs No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 11/1
31GS407 is a historic dump site situated on a forested upland, approximately 1,013 m southeast
of Little Beaverdam Creek (Figures 41 and 42). The site can be dated to the mid -twentieth century
based on the maker's marks of five artifacts found on the surface within the site (see Appendix B).
A representative sample of potentially dateable artifacts were recovered from the surface Figure
43. Eleven STPs were excavated while delineating the site, and one shovel test contained a single
metal button within the top 15 cm of soil. A typical soil profile consisted of 15 cm of dark grayish
brown (10YR 4/2) silty loam over a red (2.5YR 4/6) clay loam subsoil (Figure 44). Although
evidence of a potential chimney and other architectural refuse was observed no structures were
visible in the area of the site on available historic topographic maps or aerial photography. It is
recommended that this site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and no further work is
recommended as it will not provide any additional information to the history of the region
(Criterion D). This determination is based on the site's lack of integrity and the absence of intact
subsurface features.
w-
"Wr:;
Figure 41. Overview of site 31 GS407 positive STP, facing west.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 58

TrRC
O
0
0
50
nl�
FEET
15
v
METERS
1.1.200 1" = I OC
0 Cultural Resources APE
0 Newly Recorded Site
100 2-ft Contour
o Negative STP
30
O Positive STP
A Historic Feature
1 Disturbed
4 Slope
Notes.
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 42. Site 31 GS407 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 59

TrRC
Figure 43. Surface scatter with possible chimney remnants, facing west.
Figure 44. Typical soil profile within site 31GS407.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 60

TrRC
31GS408
Field Site Number: FS8 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Dump Site Elevation: 836 ft. AMSL
Components: 201 Century Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E472375, N3916478 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 10 m N/S x 10 m E/W Vegetation: Hardwood Forest
Artifact Depth: Surface No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 9/0
31GS408 is a historic dump site located on wooded upland 175 m west of Beaverdam Creek
(Figures 45 and 46). Two artifacts with maker's marks collected from the surface suggests a mid -
twentieth century date. A representative sample of artifacts were collected (see Appendix B). Nine
STPs were excavated and were all negative for cultural materials. Typical soils included 25 cm of
weak red (1 OR 4/4) silty clay loam over red (1 OR 4/6) silty clay subsoil (Figure 47). No structures
were present in the area on available historic topographic maps or aerial photography. This site is
not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and no further work is recommended as it will not provide
any additional information to the history of the region (Criterion D). This determination is based
on the site's lack of integrity and the absence of intact subsurface features and artifacts.
Figure 45. Overview of site 31GS408, facing south.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 61

TrRC
Figure 47. Typical soil profile within site 31GS408.
31 GS409
Field Site Number: FS9 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Rural Domestic Elevation: 877-882 ft. AMSL
Components: 20t' Century Landform: Upland Flats
UTM Coordinates: E472034, N3916197 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 65 m N/S x 80 m E/W Vegetation: Cultivated
Artifact Depth: 0-25 cmbs No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 58/17
31GS409 is a rural domestic site dating to the 20th century. The site is situated within a cultivated
field on an upland flat, approximately 480 m south of Beaverdam Creek (Figures 48 and 49). A
two -track road also runs through the site, generally oriented east -west (Figure 50). Structures are
present in the area of site 31GS409 on aerial maps between 1938 and 1956. No evidence of a
foundation was present, and the site is heavily eroded within continuously cultivated land. Fifty-
eight shovel tests were excavated while delineating the site, seventeen of which were positive for
cultural materials (see Appendix B). Artifacts were recovered from the top 25 cm of soil, but no
subsurface features were identified. A typical soil profile consisted of 25 cm of reddish brown
(2.5YR 5/4) clay loam over red (2.5YR 5/8) clay subsoil (Figure 51). Based on the site's lack of
integrity and the absence of intact subsurface features, TRC recommends that this site is not
eligible for listing in the NRHP. No further work is recommended as it will not provide any
additional information to the history of the region (Criterion D).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 63

i TRIC
0 Cultural Resources APE o Negative STP
0 Newly Recorded Site O Positive STP
0 50 100 :; Pedestrian Survey A Historic Feature
FEET — 2-ft Contour • High Surface Visibility
0 15 30
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 10{T 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 48. Site 31 GS409 survey results.
O
West
V��rrr�r
A`enl�eck,
G"rr�Tniu
%nnessee
Carallrza
Georgia
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 64

TrRC
Figure 49. Overview of site 31GS409, facing west.
Figure 50. Two -track road within site 31 GS409, facing northwest.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 65

TrRC
Figure 51. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS409.
31GS410
Field Site Number: FS 10 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Dump Site Elevation: 849-853 ft. AMSL
Components: 20th Century Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E474482, N3915417 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 13 m N/S x 32 m E/W Vegetation: Hardwood Forest
Artifact Depth: 0-15 cmbs No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 14/1
31GS410 is a historic dump site on the surface of a partially forested upland 85 m west of an
unnamed tributary of the Little Beaverdam Creek (Figures 52 and 53). It is dated to the twentieth
century based on the presence of an applied color label on a Coca-Cola bottle fragment recovered
from a shovel test. A representative sample of artifacts were collected from the surface. Fourteen
STPs were excavated delineating the site, one of which was positive containing four artifacts (see
Appendix B). Typical soils included 10 cm of dusty red (2.5YR 3/2) sandy loam over a weak red
(1 OR5/4) sandy clay subsoil (Figure 54). No structures were present in the area on available historic
topographic maps or aerial photography, but a trailer was present next to the site from 1997 to
2019. This site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and no further work is recommended as it
will not provide any additional information to the history of the region (Criterion D). This
determination is based on the site's lack of integrity, as well as the absence of intact subsurface
features and artifacts.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 66

TrRC
■11111111114
Cultural Resources APE O Positive STP
0 Newly Recorded Site A Historic Feature
0 50 100 `0 Slope 1 Disturbed
FEET 2-ft Contour 1 Slope
0 15 30 Q Negative STP
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 10c, 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 52. Site 31 GS410 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
West
A`enlvck,
Hrginla
%nnessee
c nrda
Carallrza
Georgia
67

TrRC
Figure 53. Overview of site 31 GS410, facing northeast.
Figure 54. Typical soil profile within site 31GS410.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 68

4% TrRC
31GS411
Field Site Number: FS 11 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Rural Domestic Residence Elevation: 824-832 ft. AMSL
Components: Late 19'-201 Centuries Landform: Upland Flats
UTM Coordinates: E472374, N3915809 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 27 m N/S x 30 m E/W Vegetation: Pasture
Artifact Depth: 0-20 cmbs No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 17/3
31GS411 is a rural domestic residence site dating to the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries (55
and 56). It is situated on an upland flat within a cow pasture 70 m north of an unnamed tributary
of Beaverdam Creek. Artifacts were recovered from the top 20 cm of three shovel tests (Appendix
B). A total of seventeen STPs were excavated while delineating the site. Typical soils included
about 25 cm of brown (IOYR 5/3) silty loam over a red (2.5YR 5/6) clay subsoil (Figure 57).
Remnants of a mixed concrete and brick foundation were documented (Figure 58). A square cut
nail and a piece of amethyst glass provide a possible site date of late 19th to early 20th century.
Additionally, aerial photography from 1938-1956 and USGS topographic maps from 1909 and
1911 depict a structure in the vicinity of the site (see Figures 10 and 11). It is recommended that
this site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, and no further work is recommended. It will not
provide any additional information on the history of the region (Criterion D) due to the site's lack
of integrity and the absence of intact subsurface features.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 69

TRIC
Lf
0 1
DECEMBER 2021
ii est
Cultural Resources APE o Negative STP s rhi»«r
A`entvckiG"rrgTniu
0 Newly Recorded Site o Positive STP
0 50 100 Pedestrian Survey L Historic Feature
I=rojecc�oceeo� nosfjr
FEET 0 Low Probability 1 Slope Gar-lina
0 15 30 — 2-ft Contour 1; ih
Cara7lrza
METERS Notes Georgia
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 100' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 55. Site 31 GS41 1 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 70

TrRC
Figure 56. Overview of site 31GS411, facing east.
Figure 57. Typical soil profile within site 31GS411.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 71

TrRC
Figure 58. Mixed concrete and brick foundation.
31 GS412
Field Site Number: FS12 NRHP Recommendation: Unassessed
Site Type: Historic Cemetery Elevation: 833 ft. AMSL
Components: 19t' Century Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E472520, N3915942 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 30 m N/S x 30 m E/W Vegetation: Pasture
Grave Goods Present: No Minimum Number of Burials: 14
Site 31 GS402, the Rudisill Family Cemetery, is on an upland of a present cow pasture
approximately 140 m north of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek (Figures 59 and 60). The
cemetery is encircled by red oak trees and was identified by the presence of thirteen markers
(Figure 61). The markers are a mix of granite, marble, and greenstone headstones and footstones.
Many, if not all, of the grave markers have been broken and/or displaced. Given the presence of
the ring of oak trees, however, this is likely the original location of the cemetery.
Based on the legible markers, the cemetery was used in the nineteenth century from 1828 to 1897.
The earliest burial belonging to Michael Rudisill (1758-1828), and the latest to John Rudisill (ca.
1845-1897). Many of the markers were broken and eroded, but one marble obelisk shaped marker
was in good shape. This marker, belonging to Jacob (1798-1857) and Mary (1801-1882) Rudisill,
was the only obelisk shaped marker in the cemetery. Other likely members present include William
L. Lusk (1855-1856), Ephraim Rudisill (1832-1852), Mary Hager Rudisill (1787-1864), Mary
Carpenter Rudisill (1771-1852), Phillip Rudisill (Unknown-1838), Sidney W.O. Rudisill
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 72

A% TrRC
(Unknown). Other potential, and more recent, burials are S. Wesley Wells (1863-1930) and
Thomas Wells (1890-1920) (Findagrave.com 2021).
The cemetery appears to be marginally maintained, but this may be due to the presence of cattle
on the property. Some of the markers are leaning against the trees, suggesting someone has moved
them. No depressions were identified during the survey of the cemetery. Additional research will
be necessary to determine its NRHP eligibility.
Figure 59. Overview of site 31GS412, facing southeast.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 73

i TRIC
• o w"
0
• CD
ro
W
ii esr
0 Cultural Resources APE o Negative STP s rhi»«r
Kenrvck,�rrgr�ru
0 Newly Recorded Site o Positive STP
0 50 100 :; Pedestrian Survey Slope re""�SSe
ProjeecILeeea- norfrr
FEET 2-ft Contour C:arx r!
0 15 30 crn
Cara7lrza
METERS Notes Georgia
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 10c, 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 60. Aerial of site 31 GS412.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
®.
74

TrRC
KEY
AN Grave Marker Red Oak Tree
0 m 5 m 10 m • Hickory Tree Landform Boundary
N
Figure 61. Plan map of site 31GS412, the Rudisill Family Cemetery.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 75

TrRC
31GS413
Field Site Number: FS 13 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Dump Site Elevation: 808 ft. AMSL
Components: 201 Century Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E472581, N3915857 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Lloyd sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 10 m N/S x 10 m E/W Vegetation: Pasture
Artifact Depth: 0-10 cmbs No. of STPs/Positive STPs: 9/1
31GS413 is a historic dump site on an upland within a cow pasture, located 60 m north of an
unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek (Figures 62 and 63). Artifacts (n=6) were recovered from
the top 10 cm of one shovel test (Appendix B). A wire nail recovered (the only dateable artifact)
suggests the site is likely no older than the twentieth century. A total of nine shovel tests were
excavated while delineating 31 GS413. Soils in the site were typically 10 to 20 cm of reddish brown
(5YR 5/3) clay loam over a red (2.5YR 4/6) clay subsoil (Figure 64). Aerial photography from
1938 to 1956 depict a group of structures in the vicinity of the site. The area has been heavily
eroded, and no evidence of foundations was present. TRC recommends that this site is not eligible
for listing in the NRHP, and no further work is recommended as it will not provide any additional
information to the history of the region (Criterion D). This determination is based on the site's lack
of integrity, the paucity of diagnostic artifacts, and the absence of intact subsurface features.
Figure 62. Overview of site 31GS413 from across the unnamed creek tributary, facing north.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 76

TRIC
0
0
0
o
o _
Jj'
�ECEMBER 2021
ii est
0 Cultural Resources APE 0 Negative STP s rhi»«r
Kenrvck,��rgr�ru
0 Newly Recorded Site 0 Positive STP
0 50 100 — 2-ft Contour Slope Tennessee
PfofecLILoeati- A`orfYr
FEET C:a�ri7hrr
0 15 30 1; ih
Carallrza
METERS Notes Georgia
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 100' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 63. Site 31 GS413 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
77

TrRC
Figure 64. Typical soil profile within site 31GS413.
31GS414
Field Site Number: FS12 NRHP Recommendation: Unassessed
Site Type: Historic Cemetery Elevation: 836 ft. AMSL
Components: Unknown Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E472346, N3915823 (NAD 83) Soil Type: Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, moderately eroded
Site Dimensions: 26 m N/S x 30 m E/W Vegetation: Pasture
Grave Goods Present: No Minimum Number of Burials: Unknown
Site 31 GS402 is the Mauney-Eaker Cemetery located on an upland within a cow pasture,
approximately 90 m north of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek (Figure 65). The cemetery
was identified on the Gaston County GIS database and Findagrave.com (2021). The entry for
31GS412 on Findagrave.com stated that it was located approximately 200 m east of the Mauney-
Eaker Cemetery.
No grave markers or depressions were identified during the investigation. The only possible
physical evidence of a cemetery is the presence of two trees in the vicinity of the location mapped
on the Gaston County GIS database. Due to the constraints of the present investigation, it is
unknown how many internments may be present, if any at all. Therefore, the trees have served as
the boundary for the cemetery. Further investigations and/or research will need to be conducted to
determine the site's NRHP eligibility.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 78

TRIC
i
hey
Cultural Resources APE
o Negative STP
0 Newly Recorded Site
o Positive STP
0 50 100
Pedestrian Survey
L Historic Feature
FEET
0 Low Probability
1 Slope
0 15 30
— 2-ft Contour
METERS
Notes.
1. Map Projection NAB 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1.1.200 1^ = 10c,
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 60. Aerial of site 31 GS414.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
West
V��rrr�r
tienra� k,
G"rr�Tniu
%nnessee
cih
Carallrza
Georgia
go
III
M■
79

4% Trmqc
Figure 61. Overview of site 31GS414, facing north.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 80

4% TrRC
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRC was contracted by HDR to complete a Phase I archaeological survey for the proposed
Carolina Lithium Mine Project in Gaston County, North Carolina. The Phase I archaeological
survey was conducted in July, August, September, and November 2021. Federal permits were
required for the initial 963-acre APE survey conducted by Norris and Styer (2021); however, a
federal nexus has not been identified for the 929-acre APE discussed herein but may be required
in the future. Therefore, all work was done in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966,
as amended, its implementing regulations at 36 CFR § Part 800, and guidelines set by the OSA
(CFR 2020a, 2020b; OSA 2017).
The archaeological APE consists of the proposed Project area of disturbance. Of the 929 ac APE,
approximately 898 ac were determined to be high probability for containing archeological sites
and were subject to shovel testing. The remainder of the project area consists of floodplains that
will not be developed and steep slope; these were subject to pedestrian survey and visual
inspection. A background review revealed there were no previously recorded archaeological
resources or surveys present within the APE.
A total of 2,187 STPs were excavated during the survey, 34 of which were positive for cultural
materials. As a result, seventeen new archaeological sites were identified, four of which are historic
cemeteries. Sites 31GS398 and 31GS406 are isolated lithic finds, both of which are ineligible for
NRHP inclusion. Sites 31GS399, 31GS403-405, 31GS407-411, and 31GS413 are nineteenth to
twentieth century historic sites, and are all also not eligible for the NRHP. The four historic
cemeteries (31 GS401, 31 GS402, 31 GS412, and 31 GS414), ranging from the eighteenth to
nineteenth centuries, have not been assessed for the NRHP at this time. They will remain
unassessed for NRHP eligibility until more information about the people buried there can be
attained. It is recommended that a minimum of a 25-foot buffer be included around the cemeteries
on future site plans so that they can be avoided. If unanticipated human remains are uncovered
during ground disturbing activities, we recommend immediate consultation with the OSA, Gaston
County, and other interested parties in accordance the Unmarked Human Burial and Human
Skeletal Remains Protection Act.
Based on this investigation, TRC recommends that the proposed Project will have no effect on any
significant archaeological resources. If archaeological materials are encountered during
construction, the procedures codified at 36 CFR 800.13(b) will apply. If significant artifacts are
encountered, it is recommended that the North Carolina Division of Historic Resources be
consulted.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 81

TrRC
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 82

TrRC
8.0 REFERENCES
Adovasio, J.M., J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1977 Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Retrospect 1976. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47:(2-3)
1-93.
Anderson, David G.
1985 Middle Woodland Societies on the Lower South Atlantic Slope: A View from
Georgia and South Carolina. Early Georgia 13:29-66.
Anderson, David G., John S. Cable, Niels Taylor, and Chris Judge
1996 Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observations from the March 1995 Ceramic
Workshop at Hobcaw Barony. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists,
Columbia.
Anderson, David G., and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of
Cultural Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. 2 vols.
Gilbert/Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to Interagency
Archeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta.
Baker, C. Michael
1992 Archaeological Investigations of the Highway 150 Corridor, Cherryville to
Lincolnton, Gaston and Lincoln Counties, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project R-617. Prepared by Hall & Baker Archaeological Consultants for Ralph Whitehead
and Associates, October 15, 1991.
Bartram, William
1791 The Travels of William Bartram. Edited by Francis Harper. Printed 1958. Yale
Press, New Haven.
Beck, Robin A., Christopher B. Rodning, and David G. Moore (editors)
2016 Fort San Juan and the Limits of Empire: Colonialism and Household Practice at the
Berry Site. University Press of Florida, Gainesville
Blanton, Dennis B.
1983 Lithic Raw Material and Use During the Morrow Mountain Phase in South
Carolina. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brown University,
Providence.
Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. 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 9. Occasional Papers of the
South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 83

A% TrRC
Bonnichsen, Robson, and Karen L. Tummire (editors)
1999 Ice Age Peoples of North America. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company,
Philadelphia.
Bryson, Reid A., David A. Baerreis, and W.M. Wendland
1970 The Character of the Late Glacial and Post Glacial Climatic Changes. In Pleistocene
and Recent Environments of the Central Great Plains, edited by W. Dort Jr. and J.K. Jones
Jr., pp. 53-74. University of Kansas Special Publications No. 3, Lawrence, Kansas.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American
Anthropological Association Memoir 88.
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigation at Two Stratified Sites in the
North Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Michigan.
Claflin, William H., Jr.
1931 The Stalling's Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 14(1).
Clary, Kent, and Tim Harlan
2006 Soil Survey of Cleveland County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington D.C.
Cleveland, M. Todd, M. D. Chancellor, J. L. Holland, and W. F. Stanyard
1997 Historic Architecture Survey and Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed
Columbia Airport Road, Lexington County, South Carolina. Report prepared for Rust
Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. by TRC Garrow Associates, Atlanta, Georgia.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5). Philadelphia.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered.
Quaternary Research 19:265-271.
DePratter, Chester B.
1989 Cofitechequi: Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Evidence. In Studies in South
Carolina Archaeology, edited by A. C. Goodyear and G. T. Hanson, pp. 133-156. South
Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 84

4% TrRC
Dillehay, Tom D.
1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Volume 1: Paleoenvironment
and Site Context. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Volume 2: Archaeological
Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.
Drucker, L.M., and J.D. Reid
2006 Cultural Resources Assessment - Cherryville Commercial Property (ECS Proj. No.
14-3451). Report by AF Consultants, AFC Resource Studies Series #190, Columbia, South
Carolina
Dyer, James M
2006 Revisiting the Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. BioScience 56:341-
352.
Edgar, Walter
1998 South Carolina: A History. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
Ferguson, Leland G.
1971 South Appalachian Mississippian. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Complex: Pattern and Process during the Paleo-Indian to Early
Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report, 1971-1973
Seasons, edited by William M. Gardner, pp. 5-47. Catholic University of America,
Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 1.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleo-Indian
Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series No. 156, South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Gruhn, R.
1997 The South American Context of the Pedra Pintada Site in Brazil. Current Research
in the Pleistocene, 14:29-32.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 85

A% TrRC
Guilday, J. E., and P. W. Parmalee
1982 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Washington County,
Pennsylvania: Summary and Interpretation. In Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the
Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and Cross Creek Drainage, edited by R. C.
Carlisle and J. M. Adovasio, pp. 163-174. Department of Anthropology, University of
Pittsburgh.
Gunn, Joel D.
1992 A Framework for the Paleoindian-Early Archaic Transition. In Paleoindian and
Early Archaic Period Research in the Lower Southeast: A South Carolina Perspective,
edited by D. Anderson, K. Sassaman, C. Judge, pp. 367-372. Council of South Carolina
Professional Archaeologists, Columbia.
Haynes Jr., C. Vance
1964 Fluted Projectile Points: Their Age and Dispersion. Science 45:1408-1413.
Hudson, Charles M.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-
1568. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
1997 Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun. University of Georgia, Athens.
Hudson, Charles, Marvin Smith, and Chester DePratter
1984 The Hernando de Soto Expedition: From Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern
Archaeology 3:65-75.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology.• A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Kneberg, Madeline
1956 Some Important Projectile Point Types Found in the Tennessee Area. Tennessee
Archaeologist 12:17-28.
Lepper, Bradley T., and Robson Bonnichsen (editors)
2004 New Perspectives on the First Americans. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station.
Martin, Paul S.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179:969-974.
Mathis, Mark
1979 General Settlement Models. In North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey:
Introduction and Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe
Counties, North Carolina, assembled by Mark Mathis, pp. 24-37. North Carolina
Archaeological Council Publication 11, Raleigh.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 86

A% TrRC
McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,
Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith
1986 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In
Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in
Eastern Woodlands, edited by Sarah Neusius, pp. 1-30. Occasional Paper 6, Center for
Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Miller, George L.
1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of
English Ceramics from 1787-1880. Historical Archaeology 25:1-25.
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29:1-22.
National Association of Cotton Manufacturers
1957 Cotton: A Brief Narrative of a Great Fibre. National Association of Cotton
Manufacturers, Boston, Massachusetts.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Norris, Sean, and Kenneth Styer
2021 Archaeological Survey for the Piedmont Lithium Mine Project, Gaston County,
North Carolina. Report by TRC Environmental, Columbia, South Carolina, for HDR, Inc.,
Charlotte, North Carolina
Novick, Lee
1997 Archaeological and Historical Background Report for US 74 Shelby Bypass (R-
2707) Study Area, Cleveland County, North Carolina. On file, North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Raleigh.
Oliver, Billy
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.
O'Steen, Lisa D.
1983 Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in the Wallace Reservoir: An Inner Piedmont
Perspective. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Georgia, Athens.
Phifer, Edward W., Jr.
1977 Burke County: A Brief History. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 87

A% TrRC
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Spalding, Phinizy
1977 Spain and the Coming of the English. In A History of Georgia, edited by Kenneth
Coleman, pp. 9-15. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Smith, Marvin T.
1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Interior Southeast. University of
Florida, Gainesville.
South, Stanley
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Trimble, Stanley W.
1974 Man Induced Soil Erosion on the Southern Piedmont, 1700-1970. Soil Conservation
Society of America, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Trinkley, Michael
1983 Ceramics of the Central South Carolina Coast. South Carolina Antiquities 15:43-53.
United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (USDA
NRCS)
2021 USDA Web Soil Survey. Accessed August 16, 2021.
<https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>
Ward, Trawick H.
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 Mark A.
Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53-80. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R.P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Watson, T.L.
1902 A Preliminary Report on Part of the Granites and Gneisses of Georgia. Georgia
Geology Survey Bulletin 9A.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 88

4% TrRC
Watts, W.A.
1975 Vegetation Record for the Past 20, 000 Years from a Small Marsh on Lookout
Mountain, Northwestern Georgia. Geologic Society of America Bulletin 86.
1980 Late -Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal Plain of
South Carolina. Quaternary Research 13:187-199.
Wharton, Charles H.
1978 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Geologic Geological Society Bulletin 114.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1973 Late -Wisconsin Vegetation Changes in Unglaciated North America. Quaternary
Research 3:621-631.
Woody, William E.
1989 Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington D.C.
Yarnell, Richard A., and M. Jean Black
1985 Temporal Trends Indicated by a Survey of Archaic and Woodland Plant Food
Remains from Southeastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 4(2):93-102.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 89

TrRC
Appendix A - Results Maps.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 90

0
Page 1 of 19 �-- — — — — —
IL- Cultural Resources APE 1
200 400 20-ft Contour
2 s 4 1�
6
Negative STP El
FEET 10 11
60 120 Disturbed 1213
s
METERS NrAEs 14 19
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPR 1983 S1atePlarc North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1.4 604 1,_ 4w 2 Basernap acquired frofn Esr —Alohd Imager}'

200 400
FEET
0 60 120
METERS
1.4.$04 1' = 4w
Page 2 of 19 1 - - - — —
Cultural Resources APE 20-ft Contour
Newly Recorded Site • High Surface Visibility
d Low ProbabilIy 0 Disturbed
Nnies
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPD 1983 5ialr-Plam Nar1h Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Aland Imager}'

0
Cultural Resources AIDE
200 400 0 Nearly Recorded Site
FEE' © Slope
60 120 0 Law Rrababihy
20-ft Contour
0 Negative STP
4 Disturbed
4 Slope
METERS NrAE5-
1 Map ProjeaiDn NPR 1983 S1atePlarc North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1,4604 1,_ 4 2 Basernap acquired frofn Esr —Aland Imager}'
Page 3 of 19
1
2 3 4
7
10 11
�a 13 18
14 19

U Cultural Resources APE
200 goo 0 Law Probability
FEE — 20-ft Contour
60 120
METERS NrAE5-
1 Map ProjeaiDn NPD 1983 5ialr-Plam North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1 4 6r54 1'= 40Q` 2 Basernap acquired frofn Esr —Aland Imager}'
Page 4of19---------- _
1
2 3 q
10 11
12 13 18
14 19

Page 5 of 19
Cultural Resources AIDE - 20-ft Contour
200 goo 0 Nearly Recorded Site f Slope
Slope # Wet
FEET ©
0 60 120 0 Law Rrobabihy
METERS NrAEs
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPR 1983 S1atePlarc Nar1h Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Aland Imager}'
1
2 3 4
7
5 6
� 10— El
11
�a 13 H
14 7s

0
Cultural Resources APE
200 400 NMY Recorded Site
— Pedestrian Survey
FEET 0 slope
60 120
0 Low Probability
20-tt Contour
0 Negative STP
0 Positive STP
Page 6 of 19
• High Surface Visibility
♦ DIMurbed
Slope
METERS Nnie5-
1 Map ProjeaiDn NPR 1983 S1atePlarc Nar1h Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1,4604 1,_ 4 2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Alohd Imager}'

0
11 '1 Cultural Resources AIDE
20D goo 0 Nearly Recorded Site
FEE © Slope
60 120 0 Law Rrababihy
20-ft Contour
Negative STP
Slope
4 wet
METERS NrAE5-
1 Map ProjeaiDn NPR 1983 S1atePlarc Nar1h Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1,4604 1,_ 4 2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Aland Imager}'
Page 7 of 19 ---- —
1
4
�
L 6 7
10 11 El
12 13 18
14 19

i
rOf'.�.�
Sir
lot
qr
A.I
{.r
4;%."
Ile
•
Page & of 19
U Cultural Resources ARE 20-ft Contour
200 400 0 lope Negative STP
FEET 0 Law ProblabilAy
0 60 120
METERS NrAe5
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPR 1983 5ialr-Plam Nar1h Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1 4 6r54 1'= 40Q` 2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Aland Imager}'
1
3 4 16
7
� 6 � 10 El
11
1 13 18
14 19

0
Cultural Resources APE
200 400 NMY Recorded Site
— Pedestrian Survey
FEET 0 Slope
60 120
Page 9 of 19
0 Low Probability Ll Historic Feature
20-tt Contour • High Surface risibility
0 Negative 5TP ♦ Disturbed
0 Positive STP Slope
METERS Nnie5-
1 Map ProjeaiDn NPR 1983 S1atePlarc North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1,4604 1,_ 4 2 Basernap acquired frofn Esr —Alohd Imager}'
1
3 4 1
7
� 6 E10 11
12 13 18
14 19

0
Rage 10 of 19
© Cultural Resources APE
20-ft Contour
4 Diaturbed
0 Newly Recorded Site 0
Negative STP
4 Slope
200 400
r.j Pedestrian Survey 0
Positive STP
wet
FEET
0 Slope A
Historic Feature
60 120
0 Law Probability
High Surface Visibility
METERS
I NrAEs
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPR 1983 S1atePlarc Nar1h Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1.4 604 1,_ 4W
2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Alohd Imager}'

e
�
�

e ,� � e ■
e eta® ■
��� _ ®� e �■
� e e e e � � � � ■ e
■ ■ @ ■ e � - � � ■ , �
e �
e @ ■ ■� ,�, ■ � ��
- e , @ � ■ ■
� � ® @ e e ® ■ e
IF
® ■ e
� s ■ � , s .__ , ■ _ e
■ ®
. . �/ �. a � ■ < �
� , � ■
. -� � e e , ■ ~e
\ ®
e
. . � - a @ e ■ � ® .. ® ,
\ �` r.. , � -� !!� � •
,� ■ -
�
w ¥® -
��

200 400
FEET
0 60 120
METERS
1.4.80C 1'=4w
Page 13of191 ------
U Cultural Resources APE D Negative STP
0 Slope • High Surface Visibility
0 Lave ProbabNly # Disturbed
20-ft Contour 4 Slope
Nnies
1 Map ProjeaiDn NPR 1983 S1atePlarc North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Alohd Imager}'

� \ .
- m �/\&
� �� \-.. . ■ - ,
60
-
�- ; r,��� �
0 e
840
l
■ / ��
�� � • � « \ R. �� � ? / : ` � � � � ^` � \ � I
/» %
y
� ¥ .
-
/
•� ^ .» x }per � -
� �q . , .TO .
w

0
Rage 15 of 19
U Cultural Resources APE • High Surface VisiUlity
200 goo 0 SIOPe Disturbed
FEET 20`ft Contour Slope
so 120 D Negative STP
METERS NrAEs
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPD 1983 5ialr-Plam North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1 4 6r54 1'= 40Q` 2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Aland Imager}'

Rage 16 of 19
0 Cultural Resources APE a Negative STP
200 400 =3 Pedestrian Survey z� Historic Feature
FEET 0 Low Probability 4 Slope
60 120 20-ft Contour
METERS I NrAEs
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPR 1983 S1atePlarc North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1.4 604 1,_ 4W 2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Alohd Imager}'
1
� � 4 711
7
6
9 1
�a 13 18
L4 19

0
U Cultural Resources APE D Negative 5TP
200 400 0 Law Probability 4 Slope
FEET — 20`ft Contour
60 120
METERS I NrAEs
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPD 1983 5ialr-Plam Nar1h Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1 4 6r54 1'= 40Q` 2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Aland Imager}'
Rage 17 of 19 -------- -
1
2 3 4
7
12 13 18
14 19

0
© Cultural Resources APE
0
Pasitive STP
0 NetMy Recorded Site
Zs
Historic Feature
200 400
0 Slope
•
High Surface Visibility
FEET
20-4 Contour
♦
Distu rbed
60 120
0 Negative STF
4
Slope
METERS
I NrAEs
1 Map Frojest NPR 1983 S1atePlarc North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1.4 604 1,_ 4w
2 Basernap acquired Fu n Esr —Alohd Imager}'
Rage 18 of 19
1
E 3 4 16
7
� 610 El
9
6 11
112 1a 13 P19
15

Cultural Rescurces APE
0
Positive STP
200 Opp
0 Nearly Recorded Site
z�
Historic Feature
2a-ft Contour
0
Disturbed
FEET
so 120
D Negative STP
4
Slope
METERS
NrAEs
1 Map ProjeaiDr NPR 1983 S1atePlarc North Carding FIPS 3200 Feet, Foal U5
1,4604 1,_ 4
2 Basernap acquired Fun Esr —Alohd Imager}'
Page 19 of 19
1
2 3 4 16
8
5 6 17
1 11
13 18
14 19

TrRC
Appendix B -Artifact Catalog
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 91

o
•m
Q
�
vA
sU
C
N
N
Syr'
Syr'
�y
Y
Y
N
O
O
y
00
!/
QI
c�'y
W
W
o
v
o
on
a
o
Zcq
�CdCd
00
0
CCQ
0
�r
d
C7
bC7
LIS
a
Cd
o
y
Cd
4
N
N
N
�
Sr
U
pl
o
o p"
H
x
O
U
O
54!
0
33
x
S
ob
V-y
M
;C'jLIS
01
zT
z
�w�33���
o��
a
co
Aod
Y1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r�•
a
y
�Q
O
!
�Q
O
O
w
0
O
O
O
U
A
O
A
�.
•cd
•�
•�
•�
yyyr
yyy..�
}}.ry
yyyr
yyyr
yyyr
yyyr
'�
y
�Ur
=�
�Ur
�Ur
9
9PUC7
U
U
_�
U
U
U
U
U
A CC
�v]`/-r
�rCCon
,`Ziz
UU
W
UU
U
UC7
U
rr
,-r
,-r
,-r
d
a
In
In
aj
U
O
rr
O
rr
O
rr
O
rr
rr
O
rr
O
rr
O
rr
00
rr
rr
00
rr
rr
O
rr
rr
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I.
0
U
U
U
U
A
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
UUUUU
U
U
�n
V1
V'1
0
0
0
0
V1
V'1
V'1
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
01
V1
o
rrt�t�oo�n�n�nv���
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
000
0
00o
v
o\
c
0000�n00000000
0
000
0
000
�n
�n
Cd
Cd
Cd
v
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Z
ZZZ
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
o
a,
a,
a,
arL
a
rL.a.a.a.a.
a
F-4
Fr
Fr
Fr
Fr
Fr
Fr
Fr
Fr
F-4
F-4
F-4
F-4
Fr
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Far
Far
Far
Far
Far
Far
Far
Far
Far
a
�7un
c7
N
M
C%
,-r
,-r
,�
N
N
M
V1
V1
V1
�O
�O
�O
�O
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
.-r
N
M
Wn
�c
l-
00
01
O
.-r
N_
M_
rr
N
M
W)
�D
l�
rr
N
M
�n
�D
l�
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
8
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
cO
N
.
N
.
N
N
m
O
CCCCCC
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
d
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
,-r
r✓
v
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
00
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
01
01
ON
ON
ON
O
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Wn
kn
O�
O�
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
0�
0�
ON
ON
ON
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

0)
0
M
40
Q
c
0
c
Q
X
w
U
N
O
d
J
c
.o
U
b
�
N
°
•� �
"�'
�
•�
i-i �+
it
0
�
o
�
3
b
� d
U
..�
gM
U
�,
k ,n
iC
�
m
0 0un
ul
k
En
En o
Z o
Un
oO
Z
bto
'M
0 °'
p
o
o b
P a
00
P,
a
w�wZ
W4W4
w¢
�C7w
d�
z
c°o
U
d
d
7j
CH
m
b
p
m
O
�
cC
U
�
cC
U
�'
U
U
CC
,�
U
�
�
v
o
A
U
q
,�
A
Si
4
i
i+
y
0
°
11
0
Y
o
CQ
CQ
o
CG
CQ
CQ
U
A
LIS
o
d
�
LIS
Cd
CdA
C7
LIS
LIS
LISCO
C7
"
LIS
C13
C7LIS
U aC+
R
VI
R
R
R
R
`�`Ci
y
CC
V
i"•i
U
7C
a
UUUUU
UUU
In
In
In-
U
�n
UUUU
Q
y
O
-
O
-
O
N
O
N
O
N
���
�
U
r'
U
U
u
U
u
U
u
U
u
U
u
U
u
U
u
U
u
U
u
U
li
U
�
U
����
N
N
N
N
A
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
OOv,tntn
OO000000
OOo
t—
t—
t—
o
o
o
U
o
U
o
0
0
o
U
o
0
0
o000
0000
y
kn
to
v
v
v
v
c�
to
t
w
a
w
ca
w
a
w
ca
w
ca
w
a
w
ca
w
a
w
ca
w
ca
w
caw
'n
to
to
'n
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
p
o0
00
00
00
O
O
O
U
O
O
O
O
o
o
t
�
z
W)
°kn
kn
kn
v
zZZZZ
ZZZ
Z
00
ZZZZ
o
w
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
U
o
a
a
a
a
a
0
CIO
0
0
c7
�--�
�--�
�--�
N
M
--�
N
N
M
�
�n
�Q
�
�--�
N
M
�
�n
--�
N
M
Nt
V
N
M
4�lzr
W)
I kn
I kn
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
.--a
N
M
zT
te)
�c
r-
00
N
Cl)
Wn
�Q
l-
00
N
M
zT
W)
•--i
N
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
ON
0\
01
01
d
v
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
V1
Wn
Wn
In
In
In
In
In
l-
l�
00
00
00
00
00
O
O
O\
O\
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-
IT
Cn
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M

U
k
3
4
w
u?
o
b
b
u
.ti
u
m
Zll
Hill
lill
lillW1
1
1F�
Y1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m
m
m
cd
O N
R
()
VJ
VJ
VJ
VJ
VJ
VJ
VJ
VJ
(,
cd
M
cd
M
cd
M
Y
O
cd
M
W
N
cd
M
,--�
r"n
M
,�
M
N
VJ
Vi
Vi
N
CC
VJ
rn
CL
•�
O
s.
-d
s.
Z5
5
Y
O
�u•,
c�
c�
O
O
a�
c
N
c
N
O
O
a�
a�
O
ct8
a)
a
a)
b
c�
a)
a)
a)
a)
ca
y
a)
a)
N
ca
a)
a)
a)
a0i
N
ca
c�
a)
O
��¢¢¢���3¢
u�¢
u���3���¢
2
N
M
�0
M
N
M
N
—
,-.
—
N
,-.
—
—
—
,-.
—
oo
�--�
�--�
�--�
�
�--�
N
oo
N
ddd
a
Uou000000uuuuuu0uuuuuu000u
Uo
O-----
�--�
�--�
�--�
�--�
�--�
�--�
�--�
�--�
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
A o 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'n
�
'n
oo
'n
oo
'n
o0
o
0
0
0
0
0
'n
'n
'n
'n
'n
'n
�
o
0
'n
00
'n
00
'n
�
'n
00
'n
00
'n
00
'n
00
'n
00
'n
'n
'n
'n
�
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
'n
o0
'n
00
'n
00
'n
00
'n
00
'n
00
o
0
0
0
'n 'n
W W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
v
W
v
W
'n
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
'n
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
'n
W
'n
W
c'n'n'n'n'n
•
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
'n
'n
'n
'n
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
yNy
y�y
H
yNy
H
�.
�.
�.
y�y
Z
yNy
4
yNy
4
yNy
4
yNy
4
yNy
4
yNy
4
yNy
4
y�y
4
�.
�.
y�y
H
y�y
F�
y�y
F�
y�y
F+
z
z
z
H
H
z
z
z
z
z
H
H
H
H
H
o a a
a
a
a
a4
a
a
a
a
a
a4
a4
a.
a.
P.
a4
a4
a4
a
a
a
a
a4
a4
a4
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a.
a,
a
a
a
H H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
I
H
H
H
H
U
4.
V1
ttfl
ttfl
'f1
V1
V1
\O
l�
l�
00
01
01
01
01
01
—
'n
O
�0
O
l—
O
00
O
01
O
O
•--i
N_
M_
ZT
'n
�c
r-
00
01
.--a
O
N
N
N
N
M
N"
ZT
'n
N
�c
N
r-
N
00
N
01
N
O
M
M
N
M
M
M
ZT
M
'n
M
�c
M
r-
M
00
M
01
M�
O
N
'T'T'T
M
'T
N
�
�c
o
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
,-.
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
v
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
01
O
M
M

o
�
O\
U
h
O
�
O
O
�Lr
O
O
�i
o
a
�Ua
o
7j
abi
LIS
z
w
c
r3
cow�3
3
!
44LIS
o
C7
LIS(7
cd
N
h
Y
,�
U
y
O
h
U
v�
O
cC
y
d
i"i
•y
N
YLISN
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
�3¢�aa
uu3��3
¢¢
u�3¢
u
u�
N
N
N
N
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
In
In
a
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
����
yUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUU����
UUUUUUU
UUUU
UUU
�n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�n
�n
�n
�n
�n
M
M
M
O
O
O
O
0000
000
y
,-.
,--�
,--�
,--�
,--�
,--�
,--�
,--�
,---
N
U
U
U
U
,-.
,--�
,--�
,--�
,--�
,--�
,--�
,---
N
N
N
A
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
O
O
O
0
U
U
U
U
00000000000
0000
�
�
�
�
000�n�nv',v,
v,000
000
O
lI-
l�
l�
l�
O
O
O
O
D
U
U
U
0
0
0
tn
0
0
0
O
O
O
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
cC
cC
0
cC
cC
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
V'1
�/'�
V'1
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
11
W
W
W
W
W
W
`5
`�
`�
`�
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
C �n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�n
�n
�n
O
O
O
O 00
�
r—
�
r—
�
r—
�
r—
�
r-
r-
r—
�
r—�
O
In
O
'n
O
'n
O
'n
O
'n
--
O
In
O
In
O
In
O
In
O
In
O
In
O
In
O
Wn
--�
Wn
--�
Wn
--�
Wn
O
Wn
O
Wn
O
Wn
cjZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZ
st.
st.
st.
st.
ZZZZZZZ
ZZZZ
ZZZ
oaaaaaaawwww
P.P.P.P.
a,
a,
a,
a,
a,
a,
a,
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
a.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
a, v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
C7
C7
C7
C7
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
v�
vn
vn
vn
vn
v�
v�
v�
to
00
--�
--�
c7
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
l-
00
O\
O
•--i
N
M
W)
�O
r-
.-r
N
M
Wn
�c
l-
00
.-r
N
M
'T
W)
�c
r-
00
O\
O
N
M
IT
IT
IT
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
:-
8
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CDO
O
O
O
CDO
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CDO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
8
O
O
O
O
O
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
—
It
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
'T
,-.
Il-
,
Zt
,
Zt
,
Zt
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
,-.
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
d
v
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N.
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N.
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
O�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
—
,-.
—
,-.
—
,-.
—
,-.
—
,-.
—
M
M
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
—
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
r-'
--�
--�
--�