Appendix D_Archaeological_Survey

Piedmont Lithium Carolinas, Inc. I Response to Additional Information Request (dated January 14, 2022)
Appendix D: Updated Archaeological Survey of the Carolinas Lithium Mine Project Expansion
PIEDMONT
LITHIUM
I
1
Appendix D: Updated
Archaeological Survey of the
Carolinas Lithium Mine
Project Expansion

This page intentionally left blank.

i TrR C
Archaeological Survey of
the Carolina Lithium
Mine Project Expansion,
Gaston County, North
Carolina
OME 1
February 2022
Prepared For:
HDR Inc.
440 S. Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202
Prepared By:
TRC
621 Chatham Ave. 2nd Floor
Columbia, SC

TIRC
This page intentionally left blank.

TIRC
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., 2nd Floor
Columbia, SC 29205
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
TRC Project Number: 441178
Sean Norris, MA, RPA, Principal Investigator
Authored by:
Brenda Detty, MS and Joseph DeAngelis, MA
January 2022

TIRC
This page intentionally left blank.

TIRC
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) was contracted by HDR Inc. (HDR) to complete a Phase I
archaeological survey of 963-acre area of potential effect (APE) in 2018 and 2019 for the original
Carolina Lithium Project area (Figure 1). The archaeological survey was conducted for compliance
with Section 106 purposes during the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit process with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO)
concluded that no known archaeological sites listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) would be adversely impacted by the original project area.
In 2021, TRC conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey of a 929-acre expansion to the original
963-acre project area in Gaston County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The recent 929-acre cultural
resources survey investigated the expanded mine boundary as well as 228 acres outside the mine
boundary. TRC conducted this survey under standards set by the NCSHPO, and in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 36 CFR 800.
The archaeological area of potential effect (APE) for the Project includes 44 parcels of land with
an area totaling 3.75953 square kilometers (km) (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. Seventeen
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 potentially cemeteries. TRC recommends that the
historic and prehistoric sites (31 GS398-31 GS399, 31 GS403-31 GS406, 31 GS408-31 GS411, and
31GS413) are not eligible for listing on the NRHP and no additional archaeological studies are
needed for those sites. Site 31 GS400 was recorded during the survey as a historic artifact isolate,
but will not be discussed in detail because it was found outside the APE. One historic site, 31 GS407,
was unassessed for NRHP as it abuts the boundary of the APE and was not fully delineated. The
portion of site 31GS407 within the project area is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and no
additional archaeological studies are recommended. The four potential historic cemeteries
(31 GS401, 31 GS402, 31 GS412, and 31 GS414) do not meet the standards for NRHP eligibility. A
geotechnical survey was performed after the archaeological survey which more accurately
determined the boundaries of the cemeteries. TRC recommends that sites 31GS401, 31GS402, and
31GS412 be avoided; geotechnical data suggest site 31GS414 is likely not a cemetery and will not
require avoidance.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

TIRC
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

'i TRC
-----------------
150
G�
15o
sr
�n
Chapel
Rd
3
R a
:,SeS
s ztbah
yPe Rg�
h d
�
a
o
G<¢
%
��
'pa
a�
'
6t
a4
T
rz
attii,v
o i
--
am
r
0
279
_
Q-a
�
y
g
0
a.
FEBRUARY 2022
Piedmont Lithium Mine Boundary
Guest
U,g
Cultural Resources APE
0 1,000 2,000
Previously Surveyed (2018 and 2019)
Tennessee
0
PmJed Loction
N°rth
Car°da a
FEET
0 300 600
srr
0
Notes_
Carolina
METERS
1. Map Projection: NAD 19M StatePlane North Carolina FIRS 3200 Feet, Foot US
"Community
�O1gd°
2. Basemap acquired from Esri Map" online sermce layer
1:34,000 1"= 2,833'
Figure 1. Carolina Lithium Mine Project overview.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina iii

TIRC
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina iv

TIRC
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
3.2
EUROPEAN CONTACT........................................................................................................18
3.3
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE SURVEY AREA...................................................................
19
4.0
BACKGROUND LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH..........................................22
4.1
RESOURCES AND INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN A 1.6 KM ( I MI) RADIUS OF THE STUDY AREA..22
4.2
HISTORIC MAPS................................................................................................................25
5.0
METHODS..........................................................................................................................28
5.1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODS.............................................................................28
5.2
LABORATORY METHODS...................................................................................................
28
5.3
NRHP ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA...........................................................................................30
5.4
CURATION.........................................................................................................................
30
6.0
SURVEY RESULTS...........................................................................................................32
6.1
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS...............................................................................
32
7.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................
87
8.0
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................89
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina v

TIRC
FIGURES
Figure 1. Carolina Lithium Mine Project overview.........................................................................iii
Figure 2a. Project area location........................................................................................................2
Figure 2b. 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....................................24
Figure 10. The APE georeferenced on the 1909 Lincolnton USGS topographic quadrangle . .......
26
Figure 11. The APE georeferenced on the 1973 Lincolnton West USGS topographic quadrangle
27
Figure 12. Survey methods and justifications.................................................................................29
Figure 13. Overview of newly identified cultural resources...........................................................33
Figure 14. Site 31GS398 survey results..........................................................................................35
Figure 15. Overview of site 31GS398, facing south.......................................................................36
Figure 16. Typical soil profile on site 31GS398.............................................................................36
Figure 17. Site 31GS399 survey results..........................................................................................38
Figure 18. Overview of site 31GS399, facing northwest................................................................39
Figure 19. Overview of Foundation 1 on site 31GS399, facing south...........................................39
Figure 20. Overview of Foundation 2 on site 31GS399, facing northeast.....................................40
Figure 21. Portion of cinderblock foundation for Foundation 3 from 31GS399 ............................40
Figure 22. Typical soil profile on site 31GS399.............................................................................41
Figure 23. USDA soil survey map dated 1909 depicting location of structure in the vicinity of site
31 GS399..................................................................................................................................
41
Figure 24. Aerial map dated 1938 depicting multiple structures in the vicinity of site 31GS399..42
Figure 25. Aerial map dated 1984 structures associated with site 31 GS399 having been demolished.
42
Figure 26. Aerial of site 31GS401, unnamed cemetery..................................................................44
Figure 27. Site 31GS401 cemetery features...................................................................................45
Figure 28. Overview of Site 31GS401, unnamed cemetery...........................................................46
Figure 29. Aerial of site 31GS402, the Baker Family Cemetery....................................................48
Figure 30. Site 31GS402 cemetery features...................................................................................49
Figure 31. Overview of site 31GS402, the Baker Family Cemetery..............................................50
Figure 32. Overview of site 31GS403, facing north.......................................................................51
Figure 33. Site 31GS403 survey results..........................................................................................
52
Figure 34. Typical soil profile within site 31GS403.......................................................................53
Figure 35. Site 31GS404 survey results..........................................................................................
54
Figure 36. Overview of site 31GS404, facing north.......................................................................55
Figure 37. Typical soil profile within site 31GS404.......................................................................55
Figure 38. Dilapidated shed with farming equipment within site 31GS405, facing north.............56
Figure 39. Foundation remnants within site 31GS405, facing south..............................................57
Figure 40. Structural remains within site 31GS405, facing east.....................................................57
Figure 41. Site 31GS405 survey results..........................................................................................58
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina vi

TIRC
Figure 42. Typical soil profile within site 31GS405.......................................................................59
Figure 43. Site 31GS406 survey results..........................................................................................60
Figure 44. Overview of site 31GS406, facing northwest................................................................61
Figure 45. Typical soil profile within site 31GS406.......................................................................61
Figure 46. Overview of site 31GS407 positive STP, facing west..................................................62
Figure 47. Site 31GS407 survey results..........................................................................................63
Figure 48. Site 31GS407 surface scatter with possible chimney remnants, facing west................64
Figure 49. Typical soil profile within site 31GS407.......................................................................64
Figure 50. Overview of site 31GS408, facing south.......................................................................65
Figure 51. Site 31GS408 survey results..........................................................................................66
Figure 52. Typical soil profile within site 31GS408.......................................................................67
Figure 53. Site 31GS409 survey results..........................................................................................68
Figure 54. Overview of site 31GS409, facing west........................................................................69
Figure 55. Two -track road within site 31 GS409, facing northwest ................................................
69
Figure 56. Typical soil profile within site 31GS409.......................................................................70
Figure 57. Site 31GS410 survey results..........................................................................................71
Figure 58. Overview of site 31GS410, facing northeast.................................................................72
Figure 59. Typical soil profile within site 31GS410.......................................................................72
Figure 60. Site 31GS411 survey results..........................................................................................74
Figure 61. Overview of site 31GS411, facing east.........................................................................75
Figure 62. Typical soil profile within site 31GS411.......................................................................75
Figure 63. Mixed concrete and brick foundation............................................................................
76
Figure 64. Overview of site 31GS412, facing southeast................................................................77
Figure 65. Aerial of site 31 GS412..................................................................................................
78
Figure 66. Site 31GS412 cemetery features...................................................................................79
Figure 67. Overview of site 31GS413 from across the unnamed creek tributary, facing north. ....
81
Figure 68. Site 31GS413 survey results..........................................................................................82
Figure 69. Typical soil profile within site 31GS413.......................................................................83
Figure 70. Aerial of site 31 GS414..................................................................................................
84
Figure 71. Overview of site 31GS414, facing north.......................................................................85
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 ...... 23
Table 3. Previous investigations within a one -mile radius of the study area..................................23
Table 4. Summary of results of the historic maps research............................................................25
Table 5. Summary of newly recorded archaeological sites and recommendations ........................ 32
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina vii

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

TIRC
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 2a and 2b). The
project area is located approximately 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
'4s iisa �I
s j • � t'�.`' ,V - � _ate,
..f
• L �° R
rd-
iCam-
15 \\�
---11
r �V.
I ,
L
%+�•_ e
Lincointon West '
Bessemer City,
y
f]F f',FPARFR �fl'J1
Guest
Cultural Resources APE U,>gn
Ker�ercky Uarganaa
0 1, 500 3, 000
0 USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Boundary
Te essee
Prgj d Location North
FEET Caroda a
0 450 900 so rn
Notes_ Carol ana
METERS 1 Map Projection NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US Geo gia
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "USA Topo Naps" online service layer, 7.5' Quadrangles. LincolnWe
st est (1979)
136,000 1"= 3,000' Quad ID. 35031-D3 and Bessemer City (1979) Quad ID. 35031-C3, North Carolina
Figure 2a. Project area location.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
2

X,
SU,�beam F
aim Rd
M '
.i 4 A
a
JO
IS
FFRGI IARV 9n99
Cultural Resources APE
0 1,500 3,000
FEET
0 450 900
Notes:
METERS
1. Map Projection: NAD 19M StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
2. Basemap acquired from Esn "Word Imagery"
1:35,000 1 " = 3,000'
Figure 2b. Project area location and survey areas.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
rs�i➢rai..r�►w y
OaLlh
2CeOrga¢
3

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

i TRC
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

TIRC
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
r
Figure 4. Overview of fallow field, facing east.
4(0 V016
-opla
S030i `
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 7

<i TRC
Figure 6. Overview of development associated with residential structures, facing east.
2.4 Geology
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

TIRC
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 513) 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

TIRC
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

�'� 1, �Ar T R C
In
.01
o k:
s
t
West
=1 Cultural Resources APE u g��
Kerdxrcky Uirgirdi¢
Soil Series
0 1,500 3,000 Temesse
Pmjed Lo�fion Norih
FEET Caraljna•
0 450 900 south
Notes. Carol= -
METERS 1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 320D Feet, Foot US Georgic
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
136,000 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

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

TIRC
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.)
The first people to inhabit North America are known as Paleoindians. It has been hypothesized by
scholars that Paleoindians entered North America from western Asia via the Bering Land Bridge
that connected Alaska and Siberia at the end of the Pleistocene about 15,000 B.P. During the end
of the Pleistocene, most of Canada was covered by two large ice sheets. Temperatures increased
at the end of the Pleistocene between 13,000 B.P. to 9,990 B.P. causing these ice sheets to retreat
and an ice -free corridor opened in western Canada. It is hypothesized that Paleoindians were able
to travel south through this corridor into the Americas (Meltzer 2009). Another hypothesis is that
Paleoindians traversed the Pacific coastline and eventually settled into America (Erlandson and
Braje 2012). Most likely, Paleoindians entered North American through both of those routes. It
has been suggested that Paleoindians entered the southeastern United States by traveling along
major rivers or along the Gulf Coast (Anderson 2010).
A reevaluation of Paleoindian sites in the southeast separates the Paleoindian period into three
subperiods; Early, Middle, and Late (Anderson et al. 2015). The Early Paleoindian period, also
known as pre -Clovis, dates before 13,500 BY and ends at around 11,000 B.P. Little is known
about Early Paleoindians and there are a paltry number of sites spread out across North America.
No known Early Paleoindian sites are known in North Carolina. The closest Early Paleoindian site
is in South Carolina off of the Savannah River; the Topper Site in Allendale County. At the Topper
Site, possible lithic artifacts were recovered from a stratum below a Middle Paleoindian stratum.
These artifacts include flakes, cores, blades, and a scraper, but no diagnostic artifacts were
recovered (Goodyear 2017).
The Middle Paleoindian period (ca. 11,000-10,500 B.P.) is identified by the first known diagnostic
artifact in North America. The Clovis projectile point has been found throughout the United States
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 13

TIRC
and is identified by its distinct flute at the base. Diagnostic traits of a Clovis point are "the sides
are parallel, the flutes travel usually less than one-half the length of the face, and the points are
relatively long and thick" (Meltzer 2009:243).
The Clovis Culture has been hypothesized to have been highly mobile hunters of large game such
as mammoths, mastodons, and bison (Kelly and Todd 1988). Clovis sites have been found with
the remains of butchered mammoths and mastodons. These large game kill sites are predominately
found in the Great Plains and southwestern United States. No known megafaunal kill sites have
been found in North Carolina. Blood residue analysis on a large Clovis biface recovered at the Fort
Bragg military installation has identified that the biface was used to butcher Galliformes (i.e.,
quail, grouse) (Moore et al. 2015). Some scholars argue 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 2005). Such theories point to over -hunting by early peoples as the cause of mass
megafauna extinction during the terminal Pleistocene. Others have argued changes to a warmer
climate made it inhospitable for large mammals to survive (Meltzer 2015).
The Late Paleoindian period (ca. 10,500-9,990 B.P.) is identified by more regionally distinct point
types. It has been suggested that the southeast has the highest diversity of Late Paleoindian
projectile point types in the United States (Eren et al. 2016). Over the course of the Paleoindian
period, fluted point forms underwent a general reduction in size, and true fluting gave way to basal
thinning. Daniel (2011) proposed a three-phase sequence of for the Paleoindian period in the
Piedmont of North Carolina, which includes Clovis, Redstone/Cumberland, and Hardaway -Dalton
points. Redstone have distinctive full facial fluting, relatively deep basal concavity, and triangular
blade and has been identified as a Post -Clovis manifestation on the Piedmont. Cumberland points
are similar to Redstone points but display distinctive eared and somewhat waisted base.
Cumberland points are rare on the Piedmont and occur more frequently in Tennessee, which
indicates that they are an instructive type in the Piedmont (Daniel 2011). Hardaway -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 -Dalton point are the only Paleoindian points to be recovered from good
stratigraphic context in the Piedmont having been found in the lowest levels of the Hardaway (Coe
1964) and Haw River sites (Claggett and Cable 1982).
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).
Domestic sites from the Paleoindian period are not well understood. What is known is that
Paleoindians selected high -quality lithics for tools, and many Paleoindian sites found in the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain are linked to important source areas (Daniel and Goodyear 2015;
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).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 14

TIRC
Archaic Period (9,900-3000 B.P.)
The Archaic period dates from about 9,990-3000 BY and is subdivided into three subperiods;
Early, Middle and Late. The Archaic is defined by a growth in population and the increase in
discrete social groups identified archeologically by distinct tool types. Unique attributes during the
Archaic includes the formation of distinct alliance and exchange systems, changes in subsistence
and food procurement, the introduction of pottery and the emergence of burial mounds (Anderson
and Sassaman 2012).
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 (Daniel 2011). 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). The dominate projectile points of the Early Archaic consist of Palmer
Corner Notched and Kirk Corner Notched, and Kirk Stemmed projectile point as well as bifurcates
includes Lecroy and St. Albans. Palmer are the earliest point types in the sequence followed by
Kirk Corner Notched/Stemmed and the bifurcated points are contemporaries with Kirk (Daniel
2011). Little is known about the nonlithic tools such as traps, snares, nets, and basketry that are
perishable, but must have also contributed to the overall toolkit. Bifurcated points are identified as
"a distinctive small notch in the stem that results in either rounded or pointed basal ears" (Daniel
2011:17-6). At the Haw River site, the Lecroy and St. Albans were recovered in the same
stratigraphic context in with Kirk points. It appears that Kirk points may have been based in the
Piedmont while the bifurcate tradition is based in the Appalachian mountains and are intrusive in
the Piedmont (Daniel 2011).
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. Bifaces diagnostic of
this period include Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford types (Coe 1964; Daniel 2011). Coe
(1964) postulated that the Stanly projectile points where indigenous of North Carolina and that
Morrow Mountain and Guilford projectile points represent intrusive traditions. Daniel (2011) has
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 15

TIRC
suggested that there is a technological continuity in stemming of these projectile points that represent
historical relatedness of Stanley, Morrow Mountain and Guilford.
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. The diagnostic biface of the Late
Archaic is the Savannah River Stemmed projectile point, which Daniel (2011) suggests is a
technological continuity from Guilford projectile points. 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 1977). Steatite bowls, bone pins, and other artifact types are also indicative
of this period.
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
hunting and foraging; however, there was an increased reliance on the cultivation of native plants
(Griffin 1967; Ondus 2021; Patch and Shade 2020; Yarnell and Black 1985). 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.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 16

TIRC
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 (Ondus 2021). Complex
tribal and chiefdom level political forms also developed at this time. 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 (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 (1000-450 B.P.)
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
(Boudreaux 2013; Ferguson 1971). Jones et al. (2012) suggest intergroup relations in the North
Carolina Piedmont were a major factor in the dispersion of these settlements. 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
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 17

TIRC
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 well 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
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
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 18

TIRC
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
Post Contact 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. On the other hand recent research on
the western North Carolina Piedmont Jenrette site (1650-1680) suggests the presence of Native
slavers resulted in less risky subsistence practices, in which foraged foodstuffs supplemented
agricultural practices greatly (Melton 2018).
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 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.
Escalating tension between Native groups, traders, and settlers across the southeast eventually led
to "The Cherokee War", known more generally as the French and Indian War. 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. They aligned with the British during that conflict (Anderson 1996).
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).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 19

TIRC
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
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
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 20

TIRC
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 21

TIRC
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 (31 GS221), 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 31GS417 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 (3 1 GS3 19-322) 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 GS390-394).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 22

TIRC
Table 2. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a one -mile radius of the study
area.
Site No.
Time Period
Component
Site Type
NRHP Eligibility
31 GS219
Prehistoric
Indeterminate Lithic
Limited Activity
Not Eligible
31 GS220
Multicomponent
Indeterminate Lithic/
191h C.—Present
Indeterminate/
Domestic
Not Eligible
31 GS221
Historic
19' C.—Present
Roberts Log House
Potentially Eligible
31 GS222
Prehistoric
Indeterminate Lithic
Limited Activity
Not Eligible
31GS385
Historic
191 C.—Present
African American Cemetery
Unassessed
31GS390
Multicomponent
Indeterminate Lithic/
191h C. 201h C.
Indeterminate/ Domestic
Not Eligible
31GS392
Historic
20th C.
Agricultural
Not Eligible
31 GS417
Historic
19th C. 20th 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 ECS Project. 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 23

TRIC
VIV
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 24

TIRC
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
31 GS411
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
31 GS405
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 25

TRC
OI Cultural Resources APE
West
Ua
�� Urganda
0 Structure within APE
0 1,500 3,000
Tevessee ��
Project L-lion North -- 1
FEET
Garalma i
0 450 900
sou h
Notes.
METERS
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatoPlane Nodh Carolina PIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
2_ Basemep acquired from NC_ Lincolnton-162872_19C_62900geo tit
136,000 1"= 3,000'
Figure 10. The APE georeferenced on the 1909 Lincolnton USGS topographic quadrangl
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 26

TrRC
A
L
v-L ."
L
vvS
9 W.hbi MC4.
10
P
J
b
15 V
16
14
-z �17
% 18
N
5
7-
0
61 y
4J
10
rA
'J J
Akl�"
Li P
7ECEMBER 2021
Cultural Resources APE
West
Ua
M Structure Wthin APE
ky Urganaa
0 1,500 3,000
Tennessee
FEET
0 450 900
Wes
METERS
T—ms-p Projection NAD 1983 Statei'lame Noilin Carolina FIPS 32CO Feet, Foot US
2 Basemap acquired from NC Bessemer City 163738 1973 24000—geotit and
136,000 1 3,000,
NC Lincolnton West 1628701973 24000 geo tit
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 27

TIRC
5.0 METHODS
5.1 Archaeological Survey Methods
TRC personnel surveyed the APE on foot utilizing systematic shovel testing to test for
archaeological deposits. 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 project'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. Figure 12 below summarizes the areas not subject to 30-m shovel
testing with their perspective reasoning; areas not coded within the APE were subject to shovel
testing and their locations are available in Appendix A.
Soil was screened through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth to insure uniform artifact recovery.
Artifacts were 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 28

•r -t
• u" --
e
lip
a o
IIN
��
e i +Jol
C `+
Jk
�4 C
-r
West
= Cultural Resources APE 0 Floodplain/No Development Planned Urgxia
® Pedestrian Survey © Slope Eeky U, g
W Pedestrian and 50-m Shovel Testing ® Previously Disturbed Teess�
0 1,500 3,000
Pmjed Location Norih
FEET Carolanq
0 450 900 soy a
Carolana
METERS Notes
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 32CC Feet, Foot US Georgia
135,000 1"=3,000' 2.Basemapacquired from Esri "Word Imagery"
Figure 12. Survey methods and justifications.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
29

TIRC
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
In compliance with OSA guidelines, all artifacts collected will be permanently curated with the
state of North Carolina (OSA 2017).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 30

TIRC
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 31

TIRC
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 had the potential to be historic cemeteries (Figure 13 and Table 5). Their descriptions
and subsequent NRHP recommendations are described in the following sections. Site 31 GS400
was recorded during the survey as a historic artifact isolate but was discovered just outside the
APE and will not be discussed in detail. Artifact counts and descriptions can be found in Appendix
B.
Table 5. Summary of newlv recorded archaeological sites and recommendations.
Site #
Time
Component
Site Type
NRHP Eligibility
Recommendation
Period
31GS398
Prehistoric
Indeterminate
Lithic Isolate
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31GS399
Historic
20th C.
House Site
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31 GS400
Historic
Indeterminate
Ceramic Isolate
Not Eligible
Outside of APE
31 GS401
Historic
19th C.
Unnamed
Not Eligible
Avoidance
Cemetery
31 GS402
Historic
19th C.
Baker Family
Not Eligible
Avoidance
Cemetery
31GS403
Historic
20th C.
Dump Site
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31GS404
Historic
mid-20th C.
Dump Site
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31 GS405
Historic
20th C.
Rural Domestic
Not Eligible
No Further Work
Farmstead
31GS406
Prehistoric
Early Archaic
Isolated Find
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31 GS407
Historic
mid-20th C.
Dump Site
Unassessed (Not
No Further Work
Eligible within APE)
31GS408
Historic
20th C.
Dump Site
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31 GS409
Historic
20th C.
Rural Domestic
Not Eligible
No Further Work
Residence
31GS410
Historic
20th C.
Dump Site
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31 GS411
Historic
Late 19th—Rural
Domestic
Not Eligible
No Further Work
201h C.
Residence
31 GS412
Historic
19th C.
Rudisill Family
Not Eligible
Avoidance
Cemetery
31GS413
Historic
20th C.
Dump Site
Not Eligible
No Further Work
31 GS414
Historic
Indeterminate
Possible
Not Eligible
GPR determined no
Cemetery
burials at this site
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 32

31 GS402
31 GS400
_,� 31 GS401 31 GS399
•' '
'�'
. ` 31 GS403 31 G5408
� 1 31 G5406
011L 1 31GS'
_ 31 GS405 31 GS412
'
31GS414 31GS413
31 G5411
31 GS�4.0,,
e
MARCH 2O22
�- Cultural Resources APE
ohio
west
l irginia
Newly Recorded Site
xe°�'�
Urgi is
C 1,500 3,000
Tennessee
FEET
Pmjecl Lacelim North
Carolina
0 450 900
Notes:
SM1h
CuroBna
METERS
1 Map Projection: NAU 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
2, Basemap acquired from Esr "Word Imagery'
Georgia
(((j
Figure 13. Overview of newly identified cultural resources.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 33

TIRC
31 GS398
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 14). 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 15). The site was delineated to the east and west with four shovel
tests at 10-m intervals. A typical soil profile consisted of 20 cm of gray (1 OYR 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 16). 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 34

O O
0
1 t
O
.t
` 0. Y",
o �( r_
Ile
oj
FEBRUARY 2022
West
(0 Cultural Resources APE o Negative STP
�m�xy
Newly Recorded Site • High Surface Visibility
Tennessee
0 50 100 2-ft Contour 0 Disturbed Pqea �,o
Narih
ina i
FEET Carol
0 15 30 south
Carohm
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 32CO Feet, Foot US Georgia
1 1,200 1" = 100' 2 Basemap acquiredfrom Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 14. Site 31GS398 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
35

i TIRC
Figure 15. Overview of site 31GS398, facing south.
Figure 16. Typical soil profile on site 31GS398.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 36

TIRC
31 GS399
Field Site Number: JAD072221A NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic House Site Elevation: 900 ft. AMSL
Components: 20' 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 17). 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 18). 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 19). Foundation 3 consists of cinderblocks and is at the westernmost edge of
the site on the ridge slope (Figure 20).
The northwest corner of Foundation 1 was determined as the datum of the site (Figure 21). 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 (IOR 7/8) sandy clay loam (Figure 22). 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 23) and an aerial map dated
1938 from the Gaston County tax assessor GIS depicts several structures in the vicinity (Figure
24). These are present on aerial maps at least until 1979. The structures appear to have been
demolished by 1984 (Figure 25).
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 37

Bea verda..M p6rk
m
1320
822

b
� Ln
� 1 t
F - F
✓`/ /DNS- - 1i "'a }, 1�S .� � ��� _
§Wf, 7°
rd1 �
FSM r _-

TrR C
Figure 20. Overview of Foundation 2 on site 31GS399, facing northeast.
Figure 21. Portion of cinderblock foundation for Foundation 3 from 31GS399.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 40

TrRC
Figure 22. Typical soil profile on site 31GS399.
v ff
r c 1
loan, QAO Cc
Y
_ LS V Ili
Ir a
Figure 23. USDA soil survey map dated 1909 depicting location of structure in the vicinity of
site 31GS399.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 41

TrR C
r
P '
k
r
Figure 25. Aerial map dated 1984 structures associated with site 31GS399 having been
demolished.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 42

TIRC
31 GS401
Field Site Number: JAD072321A NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic Cemetery Elevation: 860 ft. AMSL
Components: 19' 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 26-28). 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, abandoned 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. It is unlikely
the that the cemetery is the final resting place of any persons of national or local significance. The
field stone markers and granite headstone are not of a unique type. The cemetery does not meet
the criteria for inclusion in the NRHP. A geotechnical survey was performed after the
archaeological fieldwork that confirmed the cemetery is confined to the stones and markers visible
on the surface, and the updated boundary is reflected in Figure 26 (see Appendix C for geotechnical
survey results).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 43

O�
F �-
O
ff
44 4
O fO
O
FEBR
Guest
Cultural Resources APE Floodplain/No Development Planned
Newly Recorded Site O Negative STP
0 50 100 2-ft Contour 1 Wet Tennessee
Project Lcction N°rth
FEET Car°da
0 15 30 sow,
Carolina
METERS Notes
1. Map Projection: NAD 1933 StatePlane Norh Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US �0 gaa
1:1 200 1" - 100, 2_ Basemap acquired from Esri "Word Imagery"
Y
ite 31GS401 unnamed cemetery. Figure 26. Aerial of s
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
44

�i TrRC
.pr"510 ID
I O
0 O it0 O
0 0
4Lo O
AV - VOAr
NNW
0 0 a
O
O O 0
O 0
0
0 0
O
O
a '
0
t« -
❑ Cut Stone
O Field Stone
o s 10 — 2-ft Contour ~ , •'31G5401'
FEE
4 1 2�; . i►
0 Notes
METERS 1. Map Projection' NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet, Foot VS
2. 6asemap acquired from E3ri 'Wodd Imagery"
3. Contour data acquired from NC One Map
1.120 1" = 10,
Figure 27. Site 31 GS401 cemetery features.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
45

'. TRC
Figure 28. Overview of Site 31GS401, unnamed cemetery.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 46

TIRC
31 GS402
Field Site Number: JAD080521A NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic Cemetery Elevation: 860 ft. AMSL
Components: 18'-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: 5
Site 31GS402 is the Baker Family Cemetery located on a ridgetop overlooking an unnamed
tributary of Beaverdam Creek (Figure 29). The cemetery was identified by the presence of four
headstones and a sign marking the cemetery (Figures 30 and 31). 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 47

'- TRIC
O o
Y .o-
31'G S'402
O
Y
_
+ O
O
O
1
4
�f
0' i'
� •
O
O,
f' N.
fi t � � 1. . '.i, •�aP
..
FEBRUARY 2022
0
Cultural Resources APE
West
0
Newly Recorded Site
0
50 100
2-ft Contour
Tennessee
Pmled Location North
FEET
Floodplain/No Development Planned
carol
0
15 30
o
Negative STP
sow
Carolina
METERS
Notes:
1. Map Projection:
NAD 1983 StatePlane Nodh Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet,
Foot US
Georgia
1.1,200 1" = 100,
2 Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 29. Aerial of site 31GS402, the Baker Family Cemetery.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 48

'i TRIC
O Field Stone ° Tree
° Headstone — 2-ft Contour
0 s 10 1I Cemetery Sign 31r;,er
FEET ? • i.
0 1 2
0 Notes:
METERS 1. Map Projection NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FI PS 32W Feet, Foot US s
2. Basemap acquiredfrom Esri "World Imagery"
3. Contour data acquired from NO One Map
Figure 30. Site 31 GS402 cemetery features.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 49

TrRC
Figure 31. Overview of site 31GS402, 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.
A geotechnical survey was performed after the archaeological fieldwork, and the updated
boundary is reflected in Figure 29 (see Appendix C for geotechnical survey results). The
geotechnical survey confirmed that there are no burials outside the cluster of stones identified
during the archaeological survey. TRC recommends that this area be avoided. Online research
suggests the individuals interred at the Baker Family Cemetery do not have any local or regional
significance that would necessitate inclusion in the NRHP. Site 31 GS402 does not meet the criteria
for NRHP eligibility.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 50

TIRC
31 GS403
Field Site Number: FS 1
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Dump Site
Elevation: 847 ft. AMSL
Components: 20' Century
Landform: Upland or Talus Slope
UTM Coordinates: E472125, N3916582 (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: 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 32 and 33). 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 34). 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 32. Overview of site 31 GS403, facing north.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 51

101k �Illlf
TrRC
err
M
_ �
•� ,f
r
O
hF
.v
% -
13 CO 6
<
U) v.
• 0n -• •
rf
s
CO
FA
i -s
•
• ti
r-
.r
a-
•
-�
•
Cultural Resources APE
0
Negative STP
©
RecordedNewly Site
A
Historic Feature
1 50 100
-
FEET
..destrian Survey
Slopei�iray.;�.�METERS
Notes
1. Map Projection NAID 1983 StatePlane Norm Carolina HIPS
32CO Feet, Foot US
11,200 1" 100'
2 Basenrap acquired from Esrl Word Imagery"
Figure 33. Site 31GS403 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 52

i TRC
Figure 34. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS403.
31GS404
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 35 and 36). 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 37). 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 53

TIRCIlllf
IN IV 1 4
qr �, V It W, If , - lq� . .
,. .
• ,r ?��
a
Vv
Fd
{
- .31GS404
Q
O
w•
31 -5403
`j;
o 0 o
O
'
FEBRUARY 2022
0 Cultural Resources APE O
Negative STP
West Ir
Newly Recorded Site A
Historic Feature
0 50 100
- 2-ft Contour 0
Disturbed
Tennessee
FEET
i Pedestrian Survey 1
Slope
Pmjed Location N°rih
car°f
0 15 30
© Slope
South
carohm
METERS
Notes.
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS
32CO Feet, Foot US
Ge°rgia
1 1,200 1" = 100'
2 Basemap acquired from Esri "Word Imagery"
Figure 35. Site 31GS404 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 54

4 r •
=�rs1' _Jv. _ , •mil .. _ � � � �% k . � f } � -
A
r 1,
Al"
At

TIRC
31 GS405
Field Site Numbers: FS3—FS5
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Rural Domestic Farmstead
Elevation: 857-873 ft. AMSL
Components: 20' 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 in south of Beaverdam Creek. It is comprised of a dilapidated shed with farming
equipment, two foundations, and the ruins of two outbuildings (Figures 38-40). A total of 56 STPs
were excavated delineating the site, in which five contained artifacts in the top 20 cm of soil
(Figure 41). A typical soil profile consisted of 16 cm of brown (IOYR 513) clay loam topsoil over
a red (I OR 4/8) clay subsoil (Figure 42). 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 38. Dilapidated shed with farming equipment within site 31GS405, facing north.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 56

_ww
••���Rf��l1
f �
4Al--,d►-
17

ill i �i` !-. •{j� Y4 .� _ } tee_
— , 0
W t 5
yF. + V
I� ����•
0 •�
0 '
1, 5 3,1�GS405
r
0
r 4
O
0
0
0
O
O
0
O
0
A
FEBRUAF
0 Cultural Resources APE
O
Negative STP
West
Newly Recorded Site
O
Positive STP
0 50
100
— 2-ft Contour
o
Historic Feature
Tennessee
Pmjed Location
Norih
FEET
® Pedestrian Survey
0
Disturbed
Carol
0 15
30
= Floodplain/No Development Planned
Slope
South
Carohm
METERS
Notes.
Georgia
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 32CC Feet,
Foot US
1 1,200 1"
= 100'
2 Basemap acquired from Esri "Word Imagery"
Figure 41. Site 31GS405 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
58

i TRC
:.�
,4.
I '
ll
fj
P14-i"
�
ap.tt A
JPF
y �' +�i.
I.
VJ
�&*',
,fir`
ft
j.
Figure 42. Typical soil profile within site 31 GS405.
31GS406
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 43 and 44). 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 45). 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 59

° 0 0
° o °
0
o °
0
West
(0 Cultural Resources APE 0 Slope
�m�xy
Newly Recorded Site o Negative STP �`�
Tennessee
0 50 100 , 2-ft Contour 1 Slope Pqea L.A,o
N°rih
FEET C71 Pedestrian Survey Car°f
0 15 30 south
carohm
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection: NRD 1983 StatePlane Nodh Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US Ge°rgia
1 1,200 1" = 100' 2 Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 43. Site 31GS406 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
60

TrRC
Figure 44. Overview of site 31 GS406, facing northwest.
Figure 45. Typical soil profile within site 31GS406.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 61

TIRC
31 GS407
Field Site Number: FS7 NRHP Recommendation: Unassessed
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 46 and 47). 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
48). 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 49). Although
evidence of a potential chimney and other architectural refuse was observed no structures were
visible in the vicinity of the site on available historic topographic maps or aerial photography. Site
31 GS407 directly abuts the APE and the investigations did not extend outside the boundary.
Because the site has not been fully delineated, site 31 GS407 is unassessed for listing in the NRHP.
No further work is recommended on the portion of site 31GS407 within the project area, 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.
Figure 46. Overview of site 31 GS407 positive STP, facing west.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 62

<i TRIC
C
cc
FOE
(0 Cultural Resources APE
O
Positive STP
Newly Recorded Site
0
Historic Feature
0 50
100
2-ft Contour
♦
Disturbed
FEET
O Negative STP
1
Slope
0 15
30
METERS
Notes.
1. Map Projection: NRD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
FIPS
3200 Feet, Foot US
1 1,200 1"
= 100'
2 Basemap acquiredfrom Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 47. Site 31GS407 survey results.
West
zem�xy
U,rg�ra
Lo.Ail
South
Carodana
Georgia M1_
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 63

s*
,.ilyJ-
\3 r1i'. �_,,,•,.4. -- '� Cad � e� �, %' � �`� `� � `

TIRC
31 GS408
Field Site Number: FS8
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Dump Site
Elevation: 836 ft. AMSL
Components: 20' 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 in west of Beaverdam Creek
(Figures 50 and 51). 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 52). 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 50. Overview of site 31 GS408, facing south.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 65

L
CO
• •co
� r • -. i HMO � r s - � �-�
93

i TrRC
Figure 52. Typical soil profile within site 31GS408.
31GS409
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 in south of Beaverdam Creek (Figures 53 and 54). A
two -track road also runs through the site, generally oriented east -west (Figure 55). Structures are
present in the vicinity 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 56). 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 67

O
O
O
O
O
O
0 O
O
O
O O O
31 G S409
O
O
O
O O O
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O O
O O O
O
O a
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O O O
a
0
O
O
0
7
0
(0 Cultural Resources APE 0 Negative STP
EM Newly Recorded Site O Positive STP
0 50 100 2-ft Contour 0 Historic Feature
FEET s Pedestrian Survey • High Surface Visibility
0 15 30
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection: NRD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1 1,200 1" = 100' 2 Basemap acquiredfrom Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 53. Site 31GS409 survey results.
West
zem�xy
U,rg�ra
South
Carodana
Georgia M1_
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 68

TrRC
Figure 54. Overview of site 31 GS409, facing west.
Figure 55. Two -track road within site 31 GS409, facing northwest.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 69

'i TrRC
Figure 56. Typical soil profile within site 31GS409.
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 in west of an
unnamed tributary of the Little Beaverdam Creek (Figures 57 and 58). 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 59). 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 70

10
of
�a
•
U
a
U�
.o
-
•
Z�
•
•
• •'
-
`�
•
-
_
•
,
T
•
. � V
/ III'( 1
w 4111
_Cultural Resources 1 ■ Positive ■
Recorded©Newly Site A Historic Feature
1 50 100
-
-�r�r+FEET�lat{f
Slope Slope��a,►�,
..�ri r��J
r
METERS
Notes
1. Map Projection NAID 1983 StatePlane Norm Carolina HIPS 32CO Feet, Foot US
11,200 1" 100'
2 Basenrap acquired from Esrl Word Imagery"
Figure 57. Site 31GS410 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 71

TrRC
x
NO
Figure 58. Overview of site 31GS410, facing northeast.
Figure 59. Typical soil profile within site 31GS410.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 72

TIRC
31 GS411
Field Site Number: FS 11 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Rural Domestic Residence Elevation: 824-832 ft. AMSL
Components: Late 19th-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
31 GS411 is a rural domestic residence site dating to the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries
(Figures 60 and 61). 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 513) silty loam over a red (2.5YR 5/6) clay subsoil (Figure
62). Remnants of a mixed concrete and brick foundation were documented (Figure 63). 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 Figure 10). 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 73

0
0
0 1
0
0 Cultural Resources APE O Negative STP
Newly Recorded Site O Positive STP
50 100 — 2-ft Contour o Historic Feature
FEET ® Pedestrian Survey 4 Slope
15 30 Floodplain/No Development Planned
METERS Notes.
1. Map Projection: NRD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 32CC Feet, Foot US
1 1,200 1" = 100' 2 Basemap acquiredfrom Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 60. Site 31GS411 survey results.
West
U iguaul
zer�x�
Lo.Aim
�so
Carodana
Georgia M1_
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 74

' TIRC
Figure 61. Overview of site 31GS411, facing east.
Figure 62. Typical soil profile within site 31GS411.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 75

hi TrR C
Figure 63. Mixed concrete and brick foundation.
31GS412
Field Site Number: FS 12 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Historic Cemetery Elevation: 833 ft. AMSL
Components: 19' 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 31GS412, the Rudisill Family Cemetery (also known as the Rudisill Graveyard), is on an
upland of a present cow pasture approximately 140 in north of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam
Creek (Figures 64 and 65). The cemetery is encircled by red oak trees and was identified by the
presence of thirteen markers (Figure 66). 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 76

TIRC
(Unknown). Other potential, and more recent, burials are S. Wesley Wells (1863-1930) and
Thomas Wells (1890-1920) (Findagrave.com 2021).
The cemetery is abandoned and within an active cattle pasture. It has been disturbed at the surface
level. Some of the markers are leaning against the trees, suggesting someone has moved them. No
depressions were identified during the survey of the cemetery. A geotechnical survey was
performed after the archaeological fieldwork, and the updated boundary is reflected in Figure 65
(see Appendix C for geotechnical survey results). The geotechnical survey did not find any grave -
like anomalies outside of the graves marked with field stones. The cluster of trees was found to
accurately depict the cemetery boundary. Online research did not find any of the marked graves to
be individuals of local or national significance. Typically, cemeteries are not eligible for the NRHP
unless they exhibit monuments and architecture of unique or significant style, are related to a
significant event or are the resting places for significant individuals. This cemetery does not meet
those criteria. State laws, however, protect cemeteries and remains. Therefore, avoidance is
recommended.
Figure 64. Overview of site 31 GS412, facing southeast.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 77

/E.�� 7-P�-
l'•
• t
•3' T!'
gyp, �`��
� y - �ly 1
• . fi ``'-r ,
s -
g32
•
g34 '
82&826 `'
•
��.?` _
.,fit `!',
a
•
-
s
cb0
a06
Rol
ResourcesCultural APE
• Negative
t
©Newly
Recorded Site
0 Positive
1 50 100
2-ft Contour
SlopeFEET
_-j•�•R��ll���r#�4�
Pedestrian Survey
METERS
Notes
1. Map Projection NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
HIPS 32CO Feet, Foot US
Figure 65. Aerial of site 31GS412.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 78

i TRC
o
0
� �
TO
Ilf:
0
o
0 US[] 0 o
�o O
0 �
0
0 06
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
MARCH 2O22
■
Cut Stone •
Fallen Tree!
o
Field Stone 0
Tree
0 5 10
,
Headstone
2-ft Contour
\ 31G5412
FEET
•
Obelisk
0 1 2
0
METERS
Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIRS 3200 Feet, Foot US
2. 0asemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
1:120 1" = 10,
3. Contour data acquired from NO One Map
Figure 66. Site 31 GS412 cemetery features.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 79

TIRC
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 80

TIRC
31 GS413
Field Site Number: FS 13 NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible
Site Type: Dump Site Elevation: 808 ft. AMSL
Components: 20' 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 in N/S x 10 in 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 67 and 68). 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 69). 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 67. 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 81

TrR C
�b
FEBRUARY 2022
(0 Cultural Resources APE
o
Negative STP
West
�m�xy
Newly Recorded Site
O
Positive STP
0 50
100
2-ft Contour
4
Slope
Tennessee
Pq.d .i
Narih
FEET
Carahna
0 15
30
south
carohm
METERS
Notes.
Georgia
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
HIPS
32CO Feet, Foot US
1 1,200 1"
= 100'
2 Basemap acquiredfrom Esri "World Imagery"
Figure 68. Site 31GS413 survey results.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
82

i TRC
Figure 69. Typical soil profile within site 31GS413.
31 GS414
Field Site Number: FS 14
NRHP Recommendation: Determined not a Site
Site Type: Possible 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: None
Site 31GS414 was identified as the possible location of the Mauney-Eaker Cemetery located on
an upland within a cow pasture, approximately 90 in north of an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam
Creek (Figures 70 and 71). The cemetery was identified on the Gaston County GIS database and
Findagrave.com (2021). The entry for the Rudisill Family Cemetery (site 31GS412) on
Findagrave.com stated that the Mauney-Eaker Cemetery was located approximately 200 in east of
it.
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 which was used to determine the site boundary. Due to the
lack of evidence, TRC suggested that further investigations and/or research would need to be
conducted to determine the site's NRHP eligibility. Therefore, a geotechnical survey was
performed after the archaeological fieldwork. The data collected suggest that site 31GS414 is not
a cemetery (see Appendix C for geotechnical survey results).
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 83

O O
O
0
O
0
o O
0
0 Cultural Resources APE O Negative STP
West
Newly Recorded Site O Positive STP
0 50 100
- 2-ft Contour o Historic Feature
Tennessee
Pmjed Location Norih
FEET
i Pedestrian Survey 4 Slope
Carol
0 15 30
Floodplain/No Development Planned
South
Carohm
METERS
Notes.
1. Map Projection: NRD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 32CO Feet, Foot US
Georgia
1 1,200 1" = 100'
2 Basemap acquired from Esri "Word Imagery"
Figure 70. Aerial of site 31G414
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina
84

i TRC
Figure 71. Overview of site 31GS414, facing north.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 85

TIRC
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 86

TIRC
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 were
recorded as possible historic cemeteries. Sites 31GS398 and 31GS406 are isolated lithic finds,
both of which are ineligible for NRHP inclusion. Sites 31GS399, 31GS403-405, 31GS408-411,
and 31 GS413 are nineteenth to twentieth century historic sites: all are not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31 GS400 was recorded during the survey as a historic artifact isolate, but was outside the APE
and will not be impacted by the current project. Site 31GS407 is a mid -twentieth century historic
site that was unassessed for NRHP eligibility as it abuts the boundary of the APE and was not fully
delineated. The portion of the site in the project area is not significant for any potential NRHP
eligibility and no additional archaeological studies are recommended.
The four potential historic cemeteries (31 GS401, 31 GS402, 31 GS412, and 31 GS414), ranging
from the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries were identified during the archaeological survey. A
geotechnical survey was performed and more accurately determined the boundaries of sites
31GS401, 31GS402, and 31GS412. These cemeteries do not meet the criteria for the NRHP,
however, state laws mandate that they should be avoided. Geotechnical data suggest site 31 GS414
is not a cemetery and will not require avoidance. 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 87

TIRC
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 88

TIRC
8.0 REFERENCES
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.
2010 Human Settlement in the New World: Multidisciplinary Approaches, the
"Beringian" Standstill, and the Shape of Things to Come. In Human Variation in the
Americas: The Integration of Archaeology and Biological Anthropology, Edited by
Benjamin M. Auerbach, pp. 311-346, Center for Archaeological Investigations,
Occasional Paper No. 38., Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
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.
Anderson, David G., Ashley M. Smallwood, and D. Shane Miller
2015 Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States: Current Evidence
and Future Directions. PaleoAmerica 1:7-51.
Anderson, William L
1996 "Cherokee War (1759-1761)" in Colonial Wars of North America, 1512-1763 Alan
Gallay, ed. Routledge Publishing
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
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 89

TIRC
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.
Bonnichsen, Robson, and Karen L. Turnmire (editors)
1999 Ice Age Peoples of North America. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Boudreaux III, Edmond A.
2013 Community and Ritual within the Mississippian Center at Town Creek. American
Antiquity 78(3):483-501.
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.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 90

TIRC
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.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
2011 A New Look at an Old Sequence: Time, Typology, and Intrusive Traditions in the
Carolina Piedmont. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological
Symposia, edited by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R. P. Stephen Davis, pp 17-
1 — 17-18. Archaeological Council Publication 30, Raleigh.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and Albert C. Goodyear
2015 North Carolina Clovis. In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, edited by
Ashley M. Smallwood and Thomas A. Jennings, pp. 319-331. Texas A&M Press, College
Station.
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.
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.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 91

TIRC
Eren, Metin I., Anne Chao, Chun-Huo Chiu, Robert K. Colwell, Briggs Buchanan, Matthew T.
Boulanger, John Darwent, and Michael J. O'Brien
2016 Statistical Analysis of Paradigmatic Class Richness Supports Greater Paleoindian
Projectile -Point Diversity in the Southeast. American Antiquity 81:174-192.
Erlandson, Jon and Todd J. Braje
2012 Foundations for the Far West: Paleoindian Cultures on the Western Fringe of North
America. In The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology, edited by Timothy R.
Pauketat, pp. 149-159. Oxford University Press, New York.
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, 19 71-19 73
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.
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.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 92

TIRC
Jones, Eric E. Madison Gattis, Thomas C. Morrison, Andrew Wardner, and Sara Frantz
2012 Exploring Tribal Settlement Ecology in the Southeast: a Case Study from the North
Carolina Piedmont, 800-1600 CE. North American Archaeologist 33(2): 159-192
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd
1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American
Antiquity 53:231-244.
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.
2005 Twilight of the Mammoths: Extinction and Resurrection of America's Megafauna.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
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.
McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,
Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
McShane
2014 A History of Lake Norman: Fish Camps to Ferraris. The History Press
Melton, Mallory A.
2018 Cropping in an Age of Captive Taking: Exploring Evidence for Uncertainty and
Food Insecurity in the Seventeenth -Century North Carolina Piedmont. American Antiquity
83(2):204-223.
Meltzer, David J.
2009 First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 93

TIRC
2015 Pleistocene Overkill and North American Mammalian Extinctions. Annual Review
of Anthropology 44:33-53.
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.
Moore, Christopher R., Jeffrey D. Irwin, Margaret Newman, and Brian P. Kooyman
2015 Immunological Analysis of Clovis and Early Archaic Hafted Bifaces from the
North Carolina Sandhills. North Carolina Archaeology 64:104-120.
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.
Ondus, Lillian Kathleen
2021 Late Woodland Jars and Maize Consumption in the North Carolina -Virginia
Piedmont. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 94

TIRC
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.
Patch, Shawn M. and Christopher T. Espenshade
2020 A Late Woodland Camp in the North Carolina Sandhills. North Carolina
Archaeology 69:30-55.
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.
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina 95

TIRC
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.
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 96

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

F=-] Cultural Resources APE
200 400
20-ft Contour
0 Negative STP
FEET
60 120
0 Disturbed
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Page of19 1------------
17
H

0
1
0
Page 2of19-------
F=-1 Cultural Resources APE 20-ft Contour 1
200 400 0 Newly Recorded Site • High Surface Visibility 2 3 4
7
FEET 0 Low Probability 4 Disturbed 5 6 10
60 120 9
q
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"

. 0 O O
i
' ,0,
Q g, O
■ Q
O
- a
Q - 1 T-
- • ' 4
} r r
. ,.. • -
o O
O
Q Q Q Q O O
O O O ICI _
0�
O O O O O O Q O
0 O O O
—
0.
Q Q O O 7
O O `�
.O I
O O
J O
r .
-' Q o 0 0 0
if;•.' O Q Q
O Q Q Q O
O Q Q O 0
O '
Q Q O Q :' Q O
O
Q
O O O O O O ` O „° Op
I Q Q Q O Q Q C Q_ O Q .Q
O' O O O O O O I'' '_ r
O O O O O O
O Q O° O Q
O O O
.r'
00 O O OQ O O O O �O O O Q Q.,::
Q O O O Q Q '. .'� O O r
O O O Q
00 Q O O O
O O O O O : 1
00 O O° Q Q Q Q O O O O O
O Q O :'
O •° Q Q Q O t. Q Q Q Q Q O
O Q _ "O
Page 3 of 19
N 0 Cultural Resources APE 20-ft Contour
0 200 400 0 Newly Recorded Site o Negative STP
FEET © Slope 0 Disturbed
0 60 120 0 Low Probability 1 Slope
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
ULULIVI13L ZUZ1
1
2 3 4 16
5 6 7 8 El
9 10 11
12 13 18
14 15 19

le
X74
i
r ' ,vil L
d
S �
Y
Y
�fff
O 00 S�
D O O O Y w
O
0 AN
J r ' fatNO
` _ y 4(!k
r 48
40
,.
F)FCFMRFR 2n21
0
1
0
Page 4 of 19
N F=-1 Cultural Resources APE
200 400 0 Low Probability
FEET 20-ft Contour
60 120
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
1
2 3 4 16
6
7 8
5 El
9 10 11
12 13 18
14 15 19

O O O O O O O O O O O
O����-
t O 0.�+•!� O O O O O O O O O
►n , d OOil ' II 11 T I O O O O O ® O
O O O
A 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
r r 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 0 0
t
r _
•�r r 0 O O O O O O"!
"0 0 O O O O
ti ;.0 •'.
aO O O O O O
I I
-: • „ II v
rIt IF
`.
:f • '
:S
r
� R -
r
VN
I
I I
I
•a .
DECEMBER 2021
Page 5 of 19
N 0 Cultural Resources APE 20-ft Contour 1
0 200 400 0 Newly Recorded Site 1 Slope 2 3 4 16
7
FEET © Slope 0 Wet 5 6 10 8 El
0 60 120 0 Low Probability g 11
12 13 [lE8
METERS Notes: 14 15 19
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Besemap acquired from I "World Imagery"

Y-T
0
0
0 0 to
0
0 0 to*
0
0 0
0 0 dt.
iz- X 0 0 0 -14
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
O,A 0 0
00
0'
0 0 0
0 0 0 .0 0 0 0
0
0 0
Or 0 ... "Air
0
a
. ..... ...
000
000 0
00,0000
S
........ . 000.00 31 GS399
000000
...... ....
0 0'
0
0 0
0 0
0
or 0
J
0
00
01
0
. .........
0
0 1
0 0 0
0 0
0 00
.... JOk—
F)FC'.FMRFR 2021
Page 6 of 19
Cultural Resources APE = Low Probability 0 High Surface Visibility
0 200 400 0 Newly Recorded Site 20-ft Contour 1 Disturbed
Pedestrian Survey 0 Negative STP Slope
FEET 0 Slope 0 Positive STP
0 60 120
mossoff���
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina HIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
1
2 3 4 161
7
5 6 10 1 El
9
12

ov,. -
r ' � Zi'•-.� i
O O
O O Q O
O O r O'
a 11 III 11
1 II 1 I_
\ r t iy• II I
ate' II III III II.
�• �' I•; II II III
` O 11
0
Q O
I 11
O
O Q II
O
0
0
O
fly
O
O
O 00
O
O
O
?k ., �•Va
�
O
O O O
O
Q
O
- Q.
O O
Q
31
GS4
O� OO
C
M
Page 7 of 19
F=7 Cultural Resources APE 20-ft Contour
200 400 0 Newly Recorded Site Q Negative STP
FEET © Slope 1 Slope
60 120 Low Probability 1 Wet
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"

at
4.
.4 4
2F
V,
r
x
JO. oz.
A$ 4p
Ar
Ov I lip
0
0
Aw
K11
M
rtr
I
F=_1 Cultural Resources APE 20-ft Contour
200 400 0 Slope 0 Negative STP
FEET Low Probability
60 120
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Page 8 of 19
%
DFr.F:MRF:R 2521
4 16
6 7 8
- 1El
9 0 11
` 12

C
0
Page 9 of 19
Cultural Resources APE 0
Low Probability
A
Historic Feature
0 Newly Recorded Site
20-ft Contour
•
High Surface Visibility
200 400
Pedestrian Survey O
Negative STP
Disturbed
FEET
0 Slope O
Positive STP
Slope
60 120
METERS
Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400'
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"

C
M
N
0 Cultural Resources APE
20-ft Contour
0 Newly Recorded Site O
Negative STP
200 400
Pedestrian Survey O
Positive STP
FEET
© Slope L
Historic Feature
60 120
0 Low Probability •
High Surface Visibility
METERS
Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400'
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Page 10 of 19
1 Disturbed
1 Slope
1 Wet
UtIaIV113L ZUY1
1
2 3 4 16
6
7 8
5 El9 101
12 13 E19
14 15

C
9
M Cultural Resources APE
0 Newly Recorded Site
200 400
Pedestrian Survey
FEET
0 Slope
60 120
0 Low Probability
20-ft Contour
O Negative STP
O Positive STP
Page 11 of 19
• High Surface Visibility
1 Disturbed
Slope
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"

•
i

O
0
0
0
O
p
O
0 O
0
p
O
0 o
0 O
0
y
O O
O
?
0
O
0
O O
0
O
O
0
O O 0
0 0
0 0
O
O
O 0
O
O
0
_
O
O
O
0 O O *
1
O
O
0
0 0
0 O
O 0 0
r
0 0
0
0 0
0 0 O 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
o
O
Oo
0
0
00 O
O
O
O O
O O O
0 0
O
00
O O
f
O
0
O
O 00
O 0
O
O
s
¢'
0
o
O'y
_
r 00 0 0
o O
O
O O.
O
O
0 0 O
O 0
p 0
�
O
O O
O
o
O O
0
11 1
11
z
f
O'�3<'
�'!�'.
O O
O 11 1 1,
0 0
III III
-
O 0
0
0
0 0
11 III
11 III 11 111'i
11 11
,
C
O
0
0
0 0
O I I I I I
`
II III 11 11 III 11 11 III
I I 1 I I
y
•-
•�
•.
0 I 11 I I 11
0 •'�'•� I I
�I 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 I 11 11
o O- O 0 0 O O O
o p . O.- 01.'' • �1= ..'
o _
0 0 0 cQ g o
O 0 0
0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o O o o ;
0 O
O O O 0 ~0 O Yam,►
D i
O O O O 0 f �09
O` p p O
O 0
p 00
iwk, 11
• 1
Page 13 of 19
F=-1 Cultural Resources APE o Negative STP
0 200 400 0 Slope • High Surface Visibility 2434
7
FEET 0 Low Probability 4 Disturbed 10
0 60 120 20-ft Contour 1 Slope 9
12
METERS Notes: 14
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"

840
QD
/
.00
di
J 1 1
m
14

C
0
F=-1 Cultural Resources APE
200 400 0 Slope
FEE' 20-ft Contour
60 120 O Negative STP
Page 15 of 19
• High Surface Visibility
4 Disturbed
1 Slope
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
DECEMBER 2021
4-10—
4 167 86 17
9 11
12 13 18
14 15 19

F
Page 16 of 19
F=-1 Cultural Resources APE Q Negative STP
0 200 400 Pedestrian Survey o Historic Feature
FEET 0 Low Probability 1 Slope
0 60 120 20-ft Contour
METERS Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400' 2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"

AL
m

IE
9
0 Cultural Resources APE
O
Positive STP
0 Newly Recorded Site
L
Historic Feature
200 400
0 Slope
•
High Surface Visibility
FEET
20-ft Contour
1
Disturbed
60 120
p Negative STP
1
Slope
METERS
Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400'
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Page 18 of 19

C
0
F=-1 Cultural Resources APE
O
Positive STP
200 400
0 Newly Recorded Site
o
Historic Feature
20-ft Contour
4
Disturbed
FEET
60 120
O Negative STP
1
Slope
METERS
Notes:
1. Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina
RIPS 3200 Feet, Foot US
1:4,800 1" - 400'
2. Basemap acquired from Esri "World Imagery"
Page 19 of 19
1
E3 4 16
7 8
5 6 El
9 10 11
12 13 a
14 15

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

Site # _Accesstion #
31 GS398 12021.0264.0001
Cat. # Provenience
Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion Artifact Catalog
Depth
1.01 i General Surface Collection 10 cmbs
Qnty. Description
1 Biface Fragment
31GS399 2021.0265.0001 1.01 STP N500 E515 0-10 curbs 1 Metal Frag.
31GS399
2021.0265.0001
1.02
STP N500 E515
0-10 curbs
13
Stoneware
31GS399
2021.0265.0002
2.01
STP N500 E470
0-10 curbs
1
Nail
31GS399
2021.0265.0002
2.02
STP N500 E470
0-10 curbs
1
Key _
31GS399
2021.0265.0003
3.01
STP N485
0-15 curbs
1
Brick Frag. (Discarded)
31GS399
2021.0265.0004
4.01
_E500
STP N470_E500
0-10 curbs
1
Stoneware
31GS399
2021.0265.0005
5.01
STP N500 E455
0-10 curbs
1
Nail
31GS399
2021.0265.0005
5.02
STP N500 E455
0-10 curbs
1
Metal Fra .
31GS399
2021.0265.0005
5.03
STP N500 E455
0-10 curbs
1
Glass
31GS399
2021.0265.0006
6.01
STP N500 E440
0-10 crabs
1
_
Nail
31GS399
2021.0265.0006
6.02
STP N500 E440
0-10 curbs
1
_
Nail
31GS399
2021.0265.0006
16.03
STP N500 E440
0-10 curbs
1
_
Metal Wire
31GS399
2021.0265.0006
16.04
STP N500 E440
0-10 cmbs
1
Metal Wire
31 GS400
2021.0266.0001
STP N500 E500 _ 0-15 curbs II Whiteware
Material Notes
Indet.
- Salt -glazed: Green Int/Ext
- Later Cut
_ - Skeleton
_ - Machine Made
- Salt -glazed: Green Int/Ext
_ - Early Cut
_ - Indet.
- Window
Wire
_ - Indet.
_ - Barb Wire
- Indet. Wire
- Blue Hand Painted
31GS403 '2021.0404.0001 11.1 General Surface Collection 0 curbs 1 Whiteware -
31GS403 2021.0404.0001 1.2 General Surface Collection 0 cmbs 1 Amber Glass Bottle -
31GS403 2021.0404.0001 _ 1.3 General Surface Collection 0 cmbs 1 Clear Glass Bottle Base -
31GS403 2021.0404.0001 1.4 General Surface Collection 0 cmbs 1 Green Milk Glass -
31GS403 2021.0404.0001 1.5 General Surface Collection 0 cmbs 1 Amber Glass Bottle Base -
31 GS403 2021.0404.0001 1.6
31 GS403 2021.0404.0001
31 GS404 2021.0405.0001 1.1
31 GS404 2021.0405.0001 1.2
31 GS404 2021.0405.0001 1.3
2021 0405 0001
General Surface Collection
General Surface Collection
STP N500 E500
STP N500 E500
STP N500 E500
31GS404 1.4 STP N500 E500
31 GS404 2021.0405.0001
31 GS404 2021.0405.0001
31 GS404 2021.0405.0001
31 GS405 2021.0406.0001
31 GS405 2021.0406.0001
1.5
STP
N500
E500
1.6
STP
N500
E500
1.7
STP
N500
E500
1.1
STP
N505
E495
1.2
STP
N505
E495
0 cmbs
1
I Clear Glass Bottle
Clear Glass Bottle Base -
0 cmbs
1
Embossed
0 cmbs
1
Milk Glass Container
0 cmbs
1
Cobalt Glass Finish
0 cmbs
1
Clear Glass Bottle Base
0 cmbs
1
Clear Glass Bottle
0 cmbs 1 Clear Glass Bottle
0 cmbs 1 Green Glass Bottle _
0 cmbs 4 lWhiteware - Decorated
0 cmbs 1 Metal
0 cmbs 1 Clear Glass Bottle
Undecorated
MM on base - - 1940s-1980s?
Pat'd date on base - Nehi Soda 1925-1950?
MM: CLOROX - 1950s _
Rubber closure; MM on base - Hazel -Atlas Glass
Co 1923-ca.1982
Small mouth continuous external thread finish
Small mouth continuous external thread finish;
MM on base - Brockway 1955
Owens-Illinois Duraglas Prescription Bottle -
1940-1964
MM: SHELBY N.C.
Gold decorated
MM: Duraglas with Pat'd date - 1944

Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion Artifact Catalog
Site #
Accesstion #
Cat. #
Provenience
Depth
Qnty.
Description Material
Notes
31GS405
2021.0406.0002
2.1
STP N515 E500
0-10 curbs
1
Metal - Chain -
31GS405
2021.0406.0003
3.1
STP N485 E500
0-10 cmbs
26
Amber Glass -
3 1 GS405
2021.0406.0004
4.1
STP N485 E485
0-20 curbs
9
Clear Glass
31 GS405
2021.0406.0004
4.2
STP N485 E485
0-20 cmbs
1
Aqua Glass -
3 1 GS405
2021.0406.0004
4.3
STP N485 E485
0-20 curbs
5
Clear Window Glass -
_
Patent, Extract, or Flat Finish; MM on base -
3 1 GS405
2021.0406.0005
5.1
STP N500_E470
0-15 cmbs
1
Clear Glass Bottle -
Wheaton Glass Co. 1946 - ca. 1996
31GS405
2021.0406.0005
5.2
STP N500_E470
0-15 curbs
1
Clear Glass Bottle Base -
Stipling on base
31GS405
2021.0406.0005
5.3
STP N500 E470
0-15 cmbs
15
Clear Glass -
_
31GS406
2021.0407.0001
1.1
Surface Collection
0 curbs
1
PP/K Quartz
Possible Palmer (Early Archaic)
31GS407
2021.0408.0001
1.1
STP N500 E500
0-15 curbs
1
Metal - Button -
External Threaded Screw Cap Closure; MM on
31 GS407
2021.0408.0002
2.1
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Amber Glass Bottle -
base - Anchor Hocking Glass Corp 1964
12.2
External Threaded Screw Cap Closure; MM:
31GS407
2021.0408.0002
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Cobalt Glass Bottle -
NOXZEMA - 1950s
_
MM: DESERT TAN STERLING Vitrified China
31GS407
2021.0408.0002
12.3
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Porcelain Dish -
East Liverpool Ohio USA A3R - 1955
External Threaded Screw Cap Closure; MM:
31GS407
2021.0408.0002
2.4
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Clear Glass Bottle -
BRECK -_Shampoo 1960s
__
Wide mouth continuous external thread finish;
31GS407
2021.0408.0002
2.5
General Surface Collection
I0 cmbs
1
'Green Glass Bottle -
MM on base - Owen's 1954-Present
Wide mouth continuous external thread finish;
31 GS407
2021.0408.0002
2.6
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
I Clear Glass Bottle -
Body and base textured
31GS407
2021.0408.0002
2.7
JGeneral Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Whiteware - Decorated -
Pepsi Cola and design embossed; White and red
31GS408
2021.0409.0001
1.1
General Surface Collection
10 cmbs
1
Clear Glass - Embossed & ACL I -
ACL remnants
MM on base - Hazel -Atlas Glass Co. 1923 - ca.
31GS408
2021.0409.0001
1.2
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Clear Glass Bottle Base -
1982
31GS408
2021.0409.0001
1.3
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Whiteware Cup - Decorated -
_
Gold paint and embossing
31GS408
2021.0409.0001
1.4
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Amber Glass Bottle Base -
Embossed base; MM: CLOROX - 1950s
Molded edge; Floral embossing; Floral
decalomania; MM: Homer Laughlin MADE IN
31GS408
2021.0409.0001
1.5
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
2
Whiteware Dish - Decorated -
U.S.A. D 53 N 8 - April 1953
31 GS409
2021.0410.0001
1.1
STP N500 E500
0-25 cmbs
1
Amber Glass -
31 GS409
2021.0410.0001
1.2
STP N500 E500
0-25 cmbs
1
Milk Glass -
31GS409
2021.0410.0001
1.3
STP N500 E500
0-25 cmbs
1
I Clear Glass -
31GS409
2021.0410.0001
1.4
STP N500 E500
0-25 cmbs
4
Window Glass -
31GS409
2021.0410.0002
2.1
STP N515 E515
0-23 cmbs
2
Whiteware -
Undecorated

Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion Artifact Catalog
Site #
31 GS409
31 GS409
31 GS409
31 GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
3 1 GS409
31GS409
3 1 GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
31GS409
Accesstion #
2021.0410.0002
2021.0410.0002
2021.0410.0002
2021.0410.0002
2021.0410.0003
2021.0410.0003
2021.0410.0003
2021.0410.0004
2021.0410.0004
2021.0410.0004
2021.0410.0005
2021.0410.0005
2021.0410.0005
2021.0410.0005
2021.0410.0005
2021.0410.0005
2021.0410.0006
2021.0410.0007
2021.0410.0007
2021.0410.0008
2021.0410.0009
2021.0410.0009
2021.0410.0009
2021.0410.0009
2021.0410.0009
2021.0410.0010
2021.0410.0010
2021.0410.0011
2021.0410.0011
2021.0410.0012
2021.0410.0012
2021.0410.0012
2021.0410.0012
2021.0410.0013
2021.0410.0013
2021.0410.0013
2021.0410.0013
2021.0410.0013
2021.0410.0013
2021.0410.0014
12021.0410.0014
2021.0410.0014
Cat. #
2.2
12.3
2.4
2.5
13.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.1
7.1
7.2
8.1
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
110.1
10.2
111.1
11.2
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
13.6
14.1
14.2
14.3
Provenience
STP N515 E515
STP N515 E515
STP N515 E515
STP N515 E515
STP N500 E485
STP N500 E485
STP N500 E485
STP N470 E500
STP N470 E500
STP N470 E500
STP N530 E515
STP N530 E515
STP N530 E515
STP N530 E515
STP N530 E515
STP N530 E515
STP N515 E500
STP N530 E485
STP N530 E485
STP N500 E515
STP N470 E485
STP N470 E485
STP N470 E485
STP N470 E485
STP N470 E485
STP N440 E515
STP N440 E515
STP N470 E515
STP N470 E515
STP N455 E500
STP N455 E500
STP N455 E500
STP N455 E500
STP N485 E485
STP N485 E485
STP N485 E485
STP N485 E485
STP N485 E485
STP N485 E485
STP N485 E500
STP N485 E500
STP N485 E500
Depth
0-23 crabs
0-23 curbs
0-23 curbs
0-23 curbs
0-15 cmbs
0-15 cmbs
0-15 cmbs
0-10 crabs
0-10 crabs
0-10 crabs
0-30 crabs
0-30 crabs
0-30 cmbs
0-30 crabs
0-30 crabs
0-30 crabs
0 crabs
0-15 crabs
0-15 cmbs
0-10 crabs
0-19 cmbs
0-19 crabs
0-19 cmbs
0-19 crabs
0-19 crabs
0-15 cmbs
0-15 crabs
0-10 crabs
0-10 cmbs
0-10 cmbs
0-10 curbs
0-10 cmbs
0-10 crabs
0-10 crabs
0-10 crabs
0-10 cmbs
0-10 cmbs
0-10 cmbs
0-10 curbs
0-15 cmbs
0-15 cmbs
0-15 cmbs
Qnty. Description
3 Green Glass
1 Earthenware
5 Window Glass
8 Clear Glass
2 Clear Glass
1 Aqua Glass
1 Green Glass
3 Clear Glass
1 Clear Glass - Embossed
6 Aqua Glass
1 Green Glass
3 Amber Glass
2 Aqua Glass
10 Clear Glass
1 Metal
3 Window Glass
2 Clear Glass
1 Clear Glass
1 Clear Glass - Embossed
1 Green Bottle Glass
8 Clear Glass
1 Glazed Earthenware
2 Whiteware
1 Amber Glass
1 Metal
1 Clear Glass
1 Green Glass
1 Amethyst Glass
1 Clear Glass
8 Clear Glass
1 Whiteware
1 Aqua Glass
1 Glazed Earthenware
14 Clear Glass
1 Clear Glass - Embossed
2 Whiteware
8 Metal - Nails
2 Green Glass
3 Glazed Earthenware
3 Clear Glass
2 Aqua Glass
2 Window Glass
Material
Notes
Embossed: ... EERW... likely Cheerwine
Undecorated
Tool head - possible axe
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion Artifact Catalog
Site # `
Accesstion #
Cat. #
Provenience
Depth �Qnty.
Description _
Material Notes
31GS409 2021.0410.0015
15.1
STP N470 E470
0-10 cmbs
1
Glazed Earthenware
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0015
15.2
STP N470 E470
0-10 cmbs
3
Whiteware
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0015
15.3
STP N470 E470
0-10 cmbs
3
Amber Glass
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0015
15.4
STP N470 E470
0-10 cmbs
2
Aqua Glass
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0015
15.5
STP N470 E470
0-10 cmbs
1
Amethyst Glass
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0015
15.6
STP N470 E470
0-10 cmbs
2
Clear Glass - Melted
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0015
15.7
STP N470 E470
0-10 cmbs
10
Clear Glass
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0015
15.8
STP N470 E470
0-10 curbs
2
Window Glass
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0016
16.1
STP N440 E530
0-20 cmbs
2
Green Glass
-
31GS409
2021.0410.0017
17.1
STP N500 E470
0-15 cmbs
1
Whiteware
- Undecorated
31GS410
2021.0411.0001
1.1
STP N500 E500
0-15 cmbs
1
Aqua Glass
-
31 GS410
2021.0411.0001
1.2
STP N500 E500
0-15 cmbs
1
Clear Glass
- Remnants of rubber seal
31GS410
2021.0411.0001
1.3
STP N500 E500
0-15 cmbs
1
Green Bottle Glass
- White ACL: Coca-Cola - 1950s - 1990s
31GS410
2021.0411.0001
1.4
STP N500 E500
0-15 cmbs
1
Amber Glass
-
31 GS410
2021.0411.0002
2.1
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Clear Glass Bottle Finish
- Bead Finish
31GS410
2021.0411.0002
12.2
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Whiteware
- Molded edge
31GS410
2021.0411.0002
12.3
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
_
Amber Bottle Glass
- Embossed: CLOROX
31GS410
2021.0411.0002
2.4
General Surface Collection
0 cmbs
1
Clear Glass
- White ACL or paint
31GS411
2021.0412.0001
1.1
STP N500 E500
0-13 cmbs
- Undecorated
2 Whiteware
31GS411
2021.0412.0001
1.2
STP N500 E500
0-13 cmbs
1
Amethyst Glass
- late 19th C - ca. 1930s
31GS411
2021.0412.0001
1.3
STP N500 E500
0-13 cmbs
3
Clear Glass
-
31GS411
2021.0412.0002
12.1
STP N500 E515
0-10 cmbs
2
Battery Cores
-
31GS411
2021.0412.0002
2.2
STP N500 E515
0-10 cmbs
1
Metal - Misc.
-
31GS411
2021.0412.0002
12.3
STP N500 E515
0-10 cmbs
1
Metal - Nail
-
31GS411
2021.0412.0002
2.4
STP N500 E515
0-10 cmbs
5
Clear Glass
_
-
31GS411
2021.0412.0002
2.5
STP N500 E515
0-10 cmbs
1
Milk Glass
- Embossed: FOR BALL; Mason jar canning liner
31GS411
2021.0412.0003
3.1
STP N515 E500
0-20 cmbs
5
Clear Window Glass
31GS411
2021.0412.0003
3.2
STP N515 E500
0-20 cmbs
1
Metal - Misc.
31GS411
2021.0412.0003
3.3
STP N515 E500
0-20 cmbs
1
Metal - Nail
- Square Cut
31GS413
2021.0413.0001
1.1
STP N500 E500
0-10 cmbs
3
Clear Glass
-
31GS413
2021.0413.0001
1.2
STP N500 E500
0-10 cmbs
1
Whiteware
- Undecorated
31GS413
2021.0413.0001
1.3
STP N500 E500
0-10 cmbs
2
Metal - Nails
- 1 wire; 1 indet.

TrRC'Ar
Appendix C- Geotechnical Results
Archaeological Survey of the Carolina Lithium Mine Project Expansion
Gaston County, North Carolina

Seramur & Associates, PC
165 Knoll Drive
Boone, NC 28607
February 18, 2022
Mr. Sean Norris
Program Manager -- Archaeology
TRC Companies, Inc.
621 Chatham Ave.
Columbia, SC 29205
Re: Ground Penetrating Radar Surveys to delineate cemetery boundaries at Sites 31GS401, 31GS402,
31 GS412 and 31 GS414
Dear Mr. Norris:
Seramur and Associates, PC has completed Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys to delineate cemetery
boundaries at Sites 31 GS401, 31 GS402, 31 GS412 and 31 GS414 in Gaston County NC.
The GPR surveys were completed using two GPR systems including a GSSI UtilityScan with 350 mHz
hyperstacking antenna and a GSSI SIR-3000 Single Channel GPR Data Acquisition System with a
400 MHz antenna. The GPR systems send pulses of electromagnetic energy or radar into the earth through
a transmitter. The radar waves propagate through the subsurface and are partially reflected back to the
receiver when materials with different electromagnetic characteristics (dielectric properties) are
encountered below the surface. Soil that is excavated and used to backfill a grave shaft can have different
dielectric properties (conductivity) than the surrounding undisturbed soil. Changes in subsurface materials
such as disturbed soil in a grave shaft and vaults or intact coffins in a grave can be detected by the GPR
system. The GPR system detects these changes and shows them as reflections or anomalies on the radar
profiles.
The GPR systems operate on a three wheeled cart with a calibrated survey wheel. GPR grids at each site
were centered around the reported cemetery locations. GPR grid data was collected along unidirectional,
north -south transects with a one -foot spacing in each grid. Fiberglass tape measures and the Pythagorean
theorem were used to establish the rectangular grid corners which were marked with wooden stakes.
Christian burials are typically oriented east -west and the north -south transects would allow the antenna to
cross each potential burial on multiple transects.
The GPR grid data was processed using GPR-Slice software for 3-13 imaging and horizontal depth slices.
The data processing steps included correcting for time zero, applying an automatic gain control and a
background removal to eliminate horizontal banding or ringing in the GPR data. A GPR slice is an plan
view image of all reflections between a particular depth interval or time window. GPR slices were
constructed for multiple depth thicknesses below the ground surface in order to observed features at
different depths. These were reviewed to determine if anomalies characteristic of unmarked burials were
present. Variations in dielectric properties of the soil will affect the calculated depth and thus the depth of
the 3-D slices is approximate. GPR profiles (cross -sections) of each transect were also reviewed for
evidence of unmarked burials. This evidence would include shallow truncated reflections along the edge
of a grave shaft and deep, higher amplitude reflections off a coffin, vault or the base of the grave shaft.
Findings
Seramur & Associates personnel reviewed historic aerial photographs of the cemeteries to assist in
determining if there had ever been additional grave markers or infrastructure in the vicinity of the cemetery.
Phone: [phone] seramur o,icloud.com Cell: 828.773.0499

Aerial photographs prior to the 1990s were scarce. A 1993 aerial photograph was available for Sites
31 GS401 and 31 GS402, but data was limited to a 2003 aerial photograph for Sites 31 GS412 and 31 GS414.
Site 31 GS401
Site 31GS401 is located on a gentle slope above a tributary of Beaverdam Creek (Figure 1). The cemetery
was accessed using a dirt road from the R-Anell Housing Group just outside of Cherryville, NC. The
cemetery is located adjacent to a deer stand and inside a copse of trees in a cleared agricultural field (Plate
1). There are two rows of fieldstones and cut stones running roughly E-W through the trees (Figure 2, 3
and 4). Several loose field stones were scattered to the east of the trees.
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Source- U.s_G.s_
The National Map
1
F
I �
- I 4
ff i
� y
TRC Environmental
Site 31 GS401
Gaston County, NG
Seramur & Associates, PC
Boone_ NC
Figure 1. Topographic map of Site 31GS401.
0 110
220
,
s
N
Seramur & Associates, PC 2

GPR data was collected in two 60 by 60 foot GPR grids and along six transects on the eastern side of the
cemetery (Figure 3). The GPR grids were laid out so that the cemetery was in the center of the two grids.
GPR transects in Grid 1 were run towards the south and transects in Grid 2 were run to the north. The
transect data extended to the end of the grid or until trees were encountered. Grid data could not be collected
on the eastern side of the cemetery because of dense briars. Paths were cleared through the brush in order
to collect the 6 transects of GPR data. The GPR data was used to look for potential unmarked burials in
the pasture adjacent to the cemetery.
Transect 1 was collected between trees through the center of the cemetery. Six potential burials ("a"
through "f ') were identified in the vicinity of the field stones along Transect 1 (Figure 5). Field stones and
cut stones are marked along the top of the GPR profiles at their location along each transect. Some of these
burials produce very subtle anomalies on the profiles that are difficult to identify. These burials were
located using the grave markers and slight changes in the reflection characteristics at depth (Figure 5).
Two anomalies are circled on Transect 2. Anomaly 1 extends between depths of 1 and 3 feet. This could
be the end of a shallow burial extending to the east of the main cemetery. Anomaly 2 is an area of high -
amplitude, chaotic reflections below a series of hyperbolas that are attributed to tree roots. This pattern of
chaotic reflections is not apparent on adjacent Transect 3, and therefore Anomaly 2 is interpreted as
truncated reflections related to the tree root disturbance above. Two field stones were observed in this area
of Transects 2 and 3, so the do not disturb boundary was established 10 meters from these field stones
(Figure 3).
Transect 4 has numerous shallow hyperbolas along the center of the profile (Figure 6). These can be traced
across 60 feet of the profile and they dip down towards the center of the profile and then shallow toward
the end of the profile. This row of hyperbolas may indicate reflections off a dipping surface or perhaps the
top of bedrock. Anomaly 3 was identified on Transect 4 as a reflection at depth (Figure 6), but this anomaly
is only about a foot in diameter and therefore not considered a potential unmarked burial. The shallow
hyperbolas in Transects 5 and 6 are attributed to tree roots.
Seramur & Associates, PC 3

Three GPR depth slices are included to observe for evidence of unmarked burials (Figures 7, 8, and 9). A
linear, high amplitude (yellow) reflection extends to the north of the cemetery on the 0.2 to 0.4 foot depth
slice (Figure 7). This data was reviewed in profile and determined that the antenna became decoupled from
the ground surface as a result of riding over roots along the 17-foot transect line (see inset on Figure 7).
This linear reflection is an artifact of the data collection. The modern farm road is imaged in the southern
portion of Grid 2. The 1.0 to 1.2 foot depth slice shows two reflection -free areas (blue) that could represent
homogenous backfill in a grave shaft immediately east of the center of the cemetery (Figure 8). Linear
medium to high amplitude reflections radiating from the copse of trees are attributed to roots. The 4.0 to
4.2 foot GPR depth slice shows broad areas of high amplitude reflections in the vicinity of the trees and no
particular evidence of unmarked burials (Figure 9).
Two transects from each grid are also included to show subsurface reflections in areas distal to the cemetery
(Figure 3). The 35 and 44 foot transects in Grid 1 shows numerous shallow hyperbolas attributed to tree
roots (Figure 10). The deep, high amplitude reflections on this profile are interpreted as bedrock as these
reflections extend across much of the grid. The 10 and 24 foot GPR profiles in Grid 2 show high amplitude
shallow reflections and hyperbolas related to tree roots and other types of bioturbation (Figure 11). There
is no evidence of disturbance deeper in the profiles.
GPR data, topographic features, and field stone locations (Figure 3) were used to establish a 10-meter buffer
around any potential burials. This "Do Not Disturb" (DND) boundary was staked in the field and the
perimeter located with a submeter GPS.
Seramur & Associates, PC 4

0
Q Do not disturb ■ Cutstone
CD Fieldstone DND 31GS401
r
O
�,•
C: 6�b
CD
1' CD •
o
o Ake.
z �
0 C
CP
N 0 10 20 30 40 Feet
0 3 6 9 12 Meters
*L.
Figure 2 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS401 Piedmont Lithium
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC Boone, NC
Figure 2. Google Earth aerial photograph showing location of grave markers and do not disturb boundary.
Seramur & Associates, PC
W

O Do not disturb
O Field stone
■ Cutstone
r -1 GPR grid
Transects
Grid transects
[= DND 31 GS401
r— — — — — — — — —
Grid 1 I
I p'
0-01
I
T-35'
I
p I T-44'
I
I �
�
I
r- - ----
O O I
I 00 ■
I I
I T-10' 0
� I
1.
I
T-24' I
I I
I p
Grid 2 I I
-j
co
3.4. 5.
I
I
I
I
2.
1. Transect 1
2. Transect 2
3. Transect 3
4. Transect 4
5. Transect 5
6. Transect 6
Q
p
N 0 10 20 30 40 Feet
A0 3 6 9 12 Meters
Figure 3 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS401 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC
Figure 3. Map of GPR grids and location of transects, grave markers and the DND boundary.
Seramur & Associates, PC 6

O Fieldstone Transects
1. Transect 1 ■ Cutstone Grid transects
2. Transect 2 r- , GPR grid
3. Transect 3
4. Transect 4 I
5. Transect 5
6. Transect 6 I 3.
OI
O 00 10
1 2.
T-35' OO 1
O 1
Grid 1 1
■
5.
I
O Grid 2 I
O O
I
O O I
I
0 Q I
■
■
I O
O I
■
T-24' 1 ■ I
� I
I
N I
0 4 8 12 16 Feet I
0 1 2 3 4 Meters I
Figure 4 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS401 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC
Figure 4. Large-scale map showing the field stones and cut stones in relation to the GPR grids and transects.
Seramur & Associates, PC 7

Transect 1
iransect2
Tmnsect 3
Figure 5. Transects 1-3 from Grid 1 showing reflections associated with anomalies (blue) and burials (red).
Seramur & Associates, PC $

Do not disturb ■ Cutstone r -1 GPR grid 0 9.5 19 28.5 Feet
Fieldstone DND 31GS401
0 2 4 6 8 Meters
N ti • _
A1 Line 17 linear reflection
O Was
Grid 1
/ —1
CD
50 I
• ! . ��'
-'� 00
Modern road
Grid 2 ' O
Omw
0lw��— _ .
0.2-0.4- ep o=
Figure 7 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS401 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
GPR slices Gaston County, NC
Figure 7. Map showing GPR depth slices for 0.2-0.4 ft.
Seramur & Associates, PC
2

O Do not disturb ■ Cutstone r -1 GPR grid 0 7.5 15 22.5 30 Feet
O Fieldstone 0 DND 31GS401
0 2 4 6 8 Meters
Grid 1 * N
_ O
Likely burials
P 'aq��,
50 f �� ,
1� �0
a
25 /
Linear
anomalies
Grid 2 •��
0
1.0-1.2 ft depth�—
Figure 8 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS401 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
GPR slices Gaston County, NC
Figure 8. Map showing GPR depth slices for 1.0-1.2 ft.
Seramur & Associates, PC
10

Q Do not disturb ■ Cutstone r -1 GPR grid 0 7.5 15 22.5 30 Feet
O Fieldstone r-1 DND 31GS401
0 2 4 6 8 Meters
Grid 1 IN N
.o A
50
25
I•
Op
o(LI''
'!r O O O ,
.•
O�
•
.0 ` �i
Grid 2 Ida
0
4.0-4.2 ft depth 0-
Figure 9 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS401 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
GPR slices Gaston County, NC
Figure 9. Map showing GPR depth slices for 4.0-4.2 ft.
Seramur & Associates, PC
11

Figure 10. Example GPR profiles from Grid 1.
Figure 11. Example GPR profiles from Grid 2.
Seramur & Associates, PC 12

Site 31GS402
Site 31GS402 (the Baker Family Cemetery) is located on gentle ridge as shown on the U.S.G.S. topographic
map (Figure 12). The cemetery is located just inside the edge of a woods next to an agricultural field. Site
31 GS402 was accessed using a dirt road winding through a residential property outside of Cherryville, NC.
The cemetery sign is located to the north of several larger trees and indicates that the burials are over 200
years old (Plate 2). Several headstones are propped against nearby trees and an apparently in -place
headstone was also observed. Cut stones and field stones are scattered nearby (Figures 13, 14, and 15).
Yl
4.�yf
LjJJ
4 Ik1_
31G402
0
Figure 12
Site Location Map
TRC Environmental
Site 31GS402
Seramur & Associates, PC
0 110 22D
N
Source: u.s.G.s.
Gaston County, N
Boone, N
Meters
The National Mai
Figure 12. Topographic map of Site 31GS402.
Seramur & Associates, PC 13

Three GPR grids were laid so that the cemetery was located in the center of the of these grids (Figure 14).
Grid 1 was 30 by 92 feet, Grid 2 was 45 by 88 feet, and Grid 3 was 21 by 30 feet. The trees in this forested
area were large and closely grouped. Irregular grid sizes and overlapping grid corners were established to
capture as much of the perimeter of the cemetery as possible.
The shallow, 0.6 to 0.9 foot GPR depth slices show dispersed, high amplitude reflections across the three
grids (Figure 16). The deeper 4.1 to 4.4 foot GPR depth slices show a linear, east -west oriented reflection
in the north end of Grid 2 (Figure 17). Two of the GPR profiles across this anomaly show a high amplitude
reflection at a depth of about 4 feet (see inset of the 21 foot transect). This anomaly is interpreted as
potential unmarked burial "g". An area of high amplitude reflections is observed in the southwest corner
of Grid 2 and dispersed high amplitude reflections are observed in other areas of these grids, but these are
not interpreted to be related to potential unmarked burials.
Two transects from each grid are reviewed to show that the perimeter of the cemetery has been established.
The 20 and 26 foot transects from Grid 1 show a few shallow hyperbolas attributed to tree roots and a broad
high amplitude reflector at depth between 20 and 35 feet along the transects (Figure 18). This deeper
reflection is attributed to bedrock. The other transects in Grid 1 did not show evidence of unmarked burials.
The 6 and 17 foot transects from Grid 2 are shown on Figure 19. Both of these transects show chaotic, high
amplitude reflections at 5 to 15 feet along the transects. This is an area of soil disturbance and/or bedrock
that extends across the grid and is not attributed to unmarked burials. The other areas of the 6 foot transect
shows shallow, small hyperbola and reflections attributed to tree roots or cobbles in the soil profile.
Potential unmarked burial "g" is present near the north end of the 17 foot transect (Figure 19). This transect
crosses the end of the potential burial and does not show a clear hyperbola as seen on the 21 foot transect
(Figure 17).
The 5 and 15 foot transects from Grid 3 are shown on Figure 20. A few shallow reflections are observed
on these two profiles, but no disturbance or anomalies are present below 2.5 feet. Reflections characteristic
of unmarked burials were not observed beyond the trees and distributed grave markers except for potential
burial "g". GPR results, topographic features, and field stone locations (Figure 14) were used to establish
a 10-meter DND boundary (Figure 13).
Seramur & Associates, PC 14

Q Do not disturb CD Field stone 41 Cemetery sign
O Tree Headstone
0 DND 31GS402
f
o o
s
N
18 27 36 Feet
A
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Meters
Figure 13 TRC Environmental
Site 31 GS402 Piedmont Lithium Seramur Associates, PC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC Boone, NC
Figure 13. Google Earth aerial photograph showing grave markers and do not disturb boundary.
Seramur & Associates, PC 15

H
Q Do not disturb , Headstone r , GPR grid
O Tree 0 DND 31 GS402
O Fieldstone T Cemetery sign Grid transects
Grid 3 — —
I
I
► II
I T-15' T-5' III
I
I I
I III
N 0 9 18 27 36 Feet
A0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Meters
Figure 14 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS402 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC
Figure 14. Diagram showing the GPR grids and location of example transects, grave markers and the DND boundary.
Seramur & Associates, PC 16

I I T-5' I I I
I I I I
I T-15' I I
T-17'
Grid
- I
o
I I
0 Tree I I
0 Field stone 0 T I I
Headstone I I
II
TCemetery sign 0 I I
GPR grid
Grid transects I I
II
0 II
II
II
0 0 I I
II
II
II
0 0 II
II
0 II
II
II
II
N 0 2 4 6 8 Feet
n 0 II
0 0.65 1.3 1.95 2.6 Meters Grid 2 I I Grid 1
Figure 15 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS402 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC
Figure 15. Large scale map of grave markers, edge of GPR grids and example transects.
Seramur & Associates, PC 17

Q Do not disturb Cemetery sign
O Tree
J Field stone DND 31GS402
Headstone r , GPR grid
- r
N
P! L
6.5 13 19.5 26 Feet
J0_ 4 6 8 Meters
Grid 3 —
4,
_Fe
91
i 0
C r
00
0
i 0 J C
I I " I � /
or
• � 4 •
N
Grid 2 A
Grid 1
0.6-0.9 ft depth
Figure 16 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS402 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
GPR slices Gaston County, NC
Figure 16. Map of GPR depth slices for 1.0-1.2 ft.
Seramur & Associates, PC 18

Q Do not disturb Cemetery sign
O Tree
O Field stone 0 DND 31GS402
r , GPR grid
Headstone
Line 21
_ Potential
Burial G
N 0 7.5 15 22.5 30 Feet
A
0 2 4 6 8 Meters
Grid 3
a
CD
T
ON I
io
CID . -
00
0 - •
(4A-I
Q-
Grid 2
Grid 1
4.1-4.4 ft depth
Figure 17 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS402 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
GPR slices Gaston County, NC
Figure 17. Nlap of GPR depth slices for 0.2-0.4 ft. showing potential unmarked burial.
Seramur & Associates, PC
IM

Seramur & Associates, PC
20

31 GS402 Grid 3
N T-5' S
000
0.6
_—` �.
�� ��
5 0
-100
150
21
_r`r l t? _ �ey�M��
20 0 ,.
C 29
- •fir+1_i
25.0
c34
.�.`�w rr r,�.ti..r .w.�P�.I'd"�y,„"
300 S
1:0
57
0
0 A a 12 16 20 24 20 32 36 40 d4 48
x (R)
N T-15' S
00
a0
06
—
`
50
11
Yti.�a'
100
23
'�•4t�'�rC rya.
20 0 ^,
-260
u 3 4
a"'
Jfpc�!e►��t�
30 0
v 40
� ''��"� �:^:'��
35 0
e�rr
00
2
so
57
500
0 4 a 12 16 28 24 28
t Al
Figure 20. Example GPR profiles from Grid 3.
Seramur & Associates, PC 21

Site 31 GS412
Site 31 GS412 is located on a southeast facing slope (Figure 21). The pasture around this cemetery has been
benched by terracing to control surface water runoff. The site is accessed by a dirt road leading from
Whitesides Road and winding through several pastures and across a creek before climbing the slope to
reach the cemetery. A stand of large trees shelters this cemetery, and it is bordered by several fallen trees.
There are more headstones and cut stones at this study area than the two other cemeteries previously
discussed (Figures 22, 23 and 24). The grave markers appear to be both in -place and displaced, many of
which are propped against or embedded inside tree roots that have grown around them (Plate 3). A handful
of displaced field stones were located just south of the trees.
.I
�s
I
t
'Ii
I
p,6P
-
4 . fs
31GS412
Figure 21 TRC FnvironrnentaJ 0 110 220
Sate Lacatiork Map Site 31 GS412 eram�r &Associates, PC N
Source: u.s-.s. Gaston County, NC Boone_ NC Meters
The National Mai
Figure 21. Topographic map of Site 31GS412.
Seramur & Associates, PC 22

Three GPR grids were laid out so that the perimeter of the cemetery would be surveyed at a one foot interval
(Figure 23). Grid 1 was 50 by 100 feet and Grids 2 and 3 were 50 by 50 feet. Some areas of Grids 1 and 2
could not be accessed because of fallen trees. Broad areas of high amplitude reflections are observed around
the perimeter of the cemetery on the shallow GPR depth slice (0.5 to 0.7 feet) (Figure 25). Patterns of
anomalies indicating rows of graves were not observed, perhaps due to the stand of large trees growing in
the cemetery and into many of the grave shafts. The deep GPR depth slice (3.9 to 4.2 feet) shows a similar
pattern of high amplitude reflections around the stand of trees (Figure 26).
The 16 and 41 foot transects from Grid 1 are shown on Figure 27. The Grid 1 profiles showed some shallow
disturbance around the stand of trees related to tree roots, but most of the profiles were similar to these two
examples. The profiles consist of continuous horizontal reflections that extend across much of the transects.
The very shallow, surficial reflections that extend 2-3 feet and ring into the deeper reflection are the result
of the GPR antenna ascending and descending frozen piles of cow manure.
The 1 and 37 foot transects from Grid 2 are shown on Figure 28. Discontinuous, low to high amplitude
reflections are observed across the upper foot of most of these profiles. The southern end of this grid is
along one of the artificial berms graded into the slope for surface water control. A buried surface can be
traced along the 37 foot transect. The deeper portion of these profiles consist of continuous, horizontal
reflections that extend across the transects.
The 5 and 37 foot transects from Grid 3 are shown on Figure 29. Discontinuous, low to medium amplitude
reflections are observed across the upper foot of most of these profiles. The deeper portion of these profiles
consist of continuous horizontal reflections that extend across the transects.
The GPR data indicates that the burials are limited to the stand of trees and dispersed grave markers
surrounding the trees. GPR results, topographic features, and field stone locations were used to establish a
10-meter DND boundary (Figure 23).
Seramur & Associates, PC 23

Q Do not disturb , Headstone
O Tree Cutstone
O Fallen tree 0 Footstone
O Obelisk DND 31GS412
C-D Field stone ;
Ar -W
o WAO
OO
1,
O n
O 00
O
N 0 10 20 30 40 Feet
A0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Meters
Figure 22 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates. PC
Site 31 GS412 Piedmont Lithium
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC Boone, NC
Figure 22. Google Earth aerial photograph showing grave markers and do not disturb boundary.
Seramur & Associates, PC 24

Q
Do not disturb
O Fieldstone
0 Footstone
O
Tree
, Headstone
r , GPR grid
•
Fallen tree
Cutstone
0 DND 31 GS412
•
Obelisk
Grid transects
\
goo
O ^W
00' ® 44\\
\ ® ® \\ T-5'
\ T-37' \
T-1' '
' O
LI
Grid 3
Grid 2 N 0 10 20 30 40 Feet
A0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Meters
Figure 23 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS412 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC
Figure 23. Large scale map of GPR grids and location of example transects, grave markers and the DND boundary.
Seramur & Associates, PC 25

•
O
Tree
■ Cutstone
•
Fallen tree
= Footstone
•
Obelisk
r- —1 GPR grid
O
Field stone
Grid transects
Headstone
C
Grid 100
-00
y
O11-1
■
Grid 2
•
•
•
U
N 0 3.5 7 10.5 14 Feet
A0 1 2 3 4 Meters
T-41'
0\
• C3 •
Grid 3
i
O b O
O O CD
\ O 00
O
O \
T-5'
\
\
\
\
T 37' \
\
\
\
Figure 24 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS412 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC
Figure 24. Large scale map showing grave markers and example transects.
Seramur & Associates, PC 26

Q
Do not disturb
, Headstone
O
Tree
Cutstone
•
Fallen tree
Footstone
•
Obelisk
0 DND 31 GS412
Field stone
r —1 GPR grid
O
Grid 2
0.5-0.7 m depth
N 0 10 20 30 40 Feet
A0 3 6 9 12 Meters
Grid 1a
Figure 25 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS412 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
GPR slices Gaston County, NC
Figure 25. Map showing GPR depth slices for 1.0-1.2 ft
Seramur & Associates, PC 2

Q
Do not disturb
, Headstone
O
Tree
■ Cutstone
N 0
•
Fallen tree
Footstone
0
•
Obelisk
0 DND 31 GS412
Field stone
r -1 GPR grid
Grid 2
3.9-4.2 ft depth
Grid 1 a
10 20 30 40 Feet
3 6 9 12 Meters
Figure 26 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS412 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
GPR slices Gaston County, NC
Figure 26. Map showing GPR depth slices for 0.2-0.4 ft.
Seramur & Associates, PC 2�

Seramur & Associates, PC 29

r igure 29. Example urx pronies from aria s.
Seramur & Associates, PC 30

Site 31 GS414
The reported location of site 31 GS414 is approximately 200 meters southwest of site 31 GS412, also located
on the terraced pastureland (Figure 30). A single, branching evergreen tree marks this site. There are no
fieldstones in sight, other than the rubble piles and stones associates with a known site located 30 meters to
the east.
31 GS414
i
R���_CAR�1rk+IT�A�TRE
Figure 30 TRC Environmental 0 110 220
Site Location Map Site 31G 4'14 Seramur & Associates, PC N
source: u.s.G.s. Gaston County, NC Boone, NC Meters
The National Map
Figure 30. Topographic map of Site 31GS414.
Seramur & Associates, PC 31

Plate 4. Photoizraph showing pasture and field at Site 31GS414.
One GPR grid (84 by 84 feet) was laid out so that the tree was located in the center of the grid (Figures 31
and 32). Site 31GS414 lacked any other identifiable features, with no surface evidence, field stones or
depressions. The shallow GPR depth slice (0.5 to 0.7 feet) shows the location of the tree (green circle) and
small dispersed, high -amplitude reflections across the grid (Figure 33). Servel linear anomalies across the
grid are attributed to tree roots. GPR profiles for the 40, 45 and 50 foot transects are shown in Figure 34.
The 45 foot transect passes the tree and the other two transects bracket the reported location of the cemetery.
Shallow, discontinuous, low to high amplitude reflections are observed across most of these profiles. Many
areas of the deeper portion of these profiles are reflection -free and some portions show continuous
horizontal reflections. The GPR data did not find any evidence of anomalies or reflections characteristic
of unmarked burials at Site 31 GS414.
Seramur & Associates, PC 32

• Tree
N 0 10 20 30 40 Feet
A '
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Meters
Figure 31 TRC Environmental
Site 31 GS414 Piedmont Lithium Seramur o Associates, PC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC Boone, NC
Figure 31. Google Earth aerial photograph of Site 31GS414.
Seramur & Associates, PC
33

O Tree
r , GPR grid
Grid transects
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 T-40' I
1 I
1 I
T-45' I
1
1 I
1 I
1 T-50' I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
I I
_ _ J
1 Grid 1
N 0 9 18 27 36 Feet
A0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Meters
Figure 32 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS414 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
Cemetery Map Gaston County, NC
Figure 32. Map of the GPR grid and location of example transects at Site 31GS414.
Seramur & Associates, PC 34

� Tree
,GPR grid N 0 8 16 24 32 Feet
A0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Meters
Tree roots Grid 1 — A I
Owe
11 ~ • � I
y.OL
rh
Slope modification
0.5-0.7 ft depth
Figure 33 TRC Environmental Seramur & Associates, PC
Site 31 GS414 Piedmont Lithium Boone, NC
GPR slice Gaston County, NC
Figure 33. Map showing GPR depth slices for 0.2-0.4 ft.
Seramur & Associates, PC 35

31 GS414 Grid 1
N T-40' s
Z -100
-200
4 - ,,M.,► M++1 tiG„wu,"�!4/"C,r�.4,,�. 30 0
r • N 50 0
00 50 100 149 199 249 299 348 398 448 498 547 697 647 697 746 796 846
x (flJ
N T-45' s
a0 00
-200
� y: •�rdti m
0 34 30 O N
57 500
00 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 499 5.19 599 619 699 7.19 799
x (fl]
N T-50' s
0 0 ... 00
-100
MMM•i�ww�ry�►�'h
20 0 3
0 3 4 � � �M11�1 ' �`� w•��r,�r 30 0 N
46 ��� V �, 400 v
5 7 wI"'Q 1 50 0
0.0 5 0 10 0 150 20.1 25.1 30.1 k1 40 1 15 1 50 1 55 2 60 2 1652 70 2 75 2 80 2 85 2
x (fl)
Figure 34. Example GPR profiles from Grid 1
Discussion
The GPR survey at Site 31 GS401 imaged some of the marked burials and one anomaly possibly associated
with an unmarked burial. One potential unmarked burial was imaged at Site 31 GS402. The burials at Site
31 GS412 appear to be limited to the area around the grove of trees and the disperse grave markers. The
cemetery boundaries at these cemeteries were delineated and a 10-meter "Do Not Disturb" area has been
established. The GPR survey at the reported location of Site 31 GS414 did not find any evidence of a
cemetery or unmarked burials.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide geophysical surveys at these four sites. Please contact me if you
have any questions about our findings or this report.
Sincerely,
Keith C. Seramur, P.G.
Consulting Geologist
Seramur & Associates, PC 36