0403AnsonLandfill_ArchaelogicalStudy_19981101

APPROVED DOCUMENT
NO. 16
TRC
oqohi%
pe$mljj%
P P R 0 V E D
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEAUNT
DATE (all
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS
AT THE SPRING SITE (31AN60)
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAFT
NOVElbIBER 1998

ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS
AT THE SPRING SITE (31AN60),
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted to:
CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT OF NC, INC.
P.O. Box 219
Pineville, North Carolina 28134
Submitted by:
TRC GARROW ASSOCIATES, INC.
6340 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 200
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Project #23519
f yt�
racy L. Millis
Principal Investigator and Author
Draft
November 1998

ABSTRACT
This report document the results of data recovery investigations, conducted by TRC Garrow Associates,
Inc., at the Spring Site (31AN60), a National Register —eligible archaeological site located near
Wadesboro in south—central Anson County, North Carolina. Gunn and Wilson (1992) first reported site
31AN60 during a 1991 survey and reconnaissance of 3,300+ acres within three tracts that were targeted
for proposed development. Subsequent Phase II testing investigations conducted by Guan (1992)
indicated intact deposits at this site and determined that it was potentially eligible -for the National
Register of Historic Places. The Phase III investigations at the Spring Site were conducted to the
specifications of a data recovery work plan approved by the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
and the United State Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District in October 1997.
The Spring Site (31AN60) is located in an upland pine plantation at the confluence of two unnamed
tributaries of Pinch Gut Creek. The site sits on a dissected ridge that is traversed by an ephemeral
drainage originating approximately 100 m upstream from the site to the west. The site encompasses an
area measuring approximately 100 x 130 m. The previous Phase II investigations determined that it is
composed of three spatially distinct loci. Locus A is located north of an artificial pond created by a dam
blocking the natural flow of the drainage. Locus B is located south of the pond, and Locus C is situated
east of Locus B. As the previous testing excavations have determined that cultural material primarily
occurred in Loci A and B, those loci were the focus of the current investigations.
Sixty-two 1-x-1-m test units were excavated within Loci A and B during the data recovery excavations.
The test units recovered a total of 7982 Native American artifacts and seven Euro—American artifacts.
The majority of the artifacts (94.6%) were derived from mixed contexts in Stratum I, with smaller
amounts derived from intact soil horizons (4.7%) and feature contexts (0.7%). Aside from the artifacts,
one cultural feature was identified during the data recovery investigations. This feature consists of a
small pit that yielded a Piscataway projectile that is assigned to the Early Woodland period. An OCR
date of this feature yielded a date of 2555±76 B.P., confirming the temporal placement of this feature. A
more conventional radiocarbon date from this feature returned an early historic period date that was
considered unreliable. On the basis of the cultural/temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered from this site
during the Phase I —III investigations, six. time periods are represented. The primary components of the
site appear to represent an intensive habitation site during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods.
These occupations are associated with a variety of projectile point styles, including numerous small
stemmed, contracting stemmed, and triangular projectile points and Badin Cord Marked ceramic sherds.
Smaller, perhaps short-term, occupations also occurred during the Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Middle
Woodland, and Late Woodland periods, as indicated by Big Sandy, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and
Caraway projectile points and Yadkin Fabric Impressed ceramic sherds.
Cultural deposits were densest in Locus A and were primarily located within the north —central and south—
central portions of the site. In general, the artifact density represented in Locus B is considerably lower
than that in Locus A, suggesting that Locus B is located at the extreme periphery of the site. Distribution
of cultural deposits in Locus A indicates that individual occupations or discrete activity areas can be
distinguished among the overall artifact distributions. Geochemical investigations in these portions of the
site indicate an anthropogenic correlation between the two largest activity areas and certain chemical
markers. The patterning of chemical indicators with past human activity reflects a distinct difference in
the intensity and possible types of activities that occurred in these portions of 31AN60.
Analysis of lithic material from the Spring Site indicates that the site inhabitants utilized two core
technologies. The primary form of lithic reduction was associated with bifacial core reduction of rhyolite.

This was complemented with expedient core production of quartz flake tools. An abundance of late -stage
bifaces, cores, and debitage suggests that 31AN60 may have been used primarily as a seasonal base camp,
with a particular emphasis on the manufacturing of lithic tools.
The excavations have provided information regarding the local manifestation of Archaic —Woodland
period cultures, which adds to the understanding of the regional dynamics during this interesting
transitional period. Information regarding site integrity, temporal affiliation, spatial patterning, site
activities, raw material preferences, settlement patterns, and the placement of this site within a regional
perspective was collected. These investigations have successfully fulfilled the approved data recovery
plan and have resulted in the complete mitigation of adverse impacts to the significant archaeological
resources present at this National Register —eligible site. Therefore, TRC recommends that full and
unconditional clearance be given for project construction to proceed.
11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was facilitated by the help and information about the project area provided by Mr. Brian
Card, P.E., and Mr. Steve Roberts of Chambers Development of NC, Inc.
Several individuals at TRC deserve special mention for help in completing this project. Paul Webb
assisted in overseeing project completion and provided important managerial support as Project Manager;
he is also thanked for reviewing the report and providing editorial comments. Heather Millis and Joel
Gunn are thanked for their helpful comments and input derived from numerous stimulating conversations.
Grant Tew, P.E., and Mike Babuin, P.G., of TRC Environmental Corporation provided important
information pertaining to the geology of the project area. David S. Leigh, Ph.D., of the University of
Georgia contributed substantial information on the geomorphology of the site. Irwin Rovner, Ph.D., of
North Carolina State University performed the phytolith analyses and provided valuable information on
the local environs of the prehistoric period. A special thanks is extended to Nancy Asch-Sidell of
Oakland, Maine, for conducting the paleoethnobotanical analysis of carbonized floral remains retrieved
from the site. Bruce Idol is thanked for conducting the analysis of ceramic artifacts. The field crew,
consisting of Bruce Idol, Matt Jorgenson, Steve Hatch, Sara Arnold, William Jurgelski, Steve Corsini,
David S. Baluha, and Rachel de Ris contributed greatly to the successful completion of this project and
are thanked for their help as field technicians. Matt Jorgenson, Steve Hatch, Terri Russ, and Peter Betz
were invaluable in analyzing and preparing the artifact assemblage for curation. Vince Macek and Randy
Kuppless contributed the graphics in this report and are greatly appreciated. Heather Kennedy is also
thanked for copy editing the report.
H

CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FIGURES viii
TABLES x
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4
Site Setting 4
Physiography and Hydrology 4
Geology and Pedology 7
Flora and Fauna 8
Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction 9
III. CULTURAL OVERVIEW 11
Prehistoric Perspective 11
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000-8,000 B.C.) 11
Archaic Period (ca. 8,000-800 B.C.) 11
Woodland Period (ca. 800 B.C.-A.D. 1600) 12
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1600) 13
Previous Archaeological Research 14
Previous Research at 31AN60 15
IV. RESEARCH GOALS
17
Research Issues'
17
Chronology
18
Environmental Reconstruction and Resource Availability
18
Material Culture
19
Subsistence
20
Component Seasonality, Function, and Settlement Plan
21
Social Organization and Inter -Regional Relationships
21
V. RESEARCH METHODS
23
Literature and Records Search
23
Field Methodology
23
Site Preparation
23
Excavation of Test Units
24
Excavation Methods
24
Mechanical Stripping
25
Feature Recordation and Excavation
26
Off -Site Environmental Studies
27
Laboratory Methodology
27
Analysis of Prehistoric Lithic Material
27
Unspecialized Flake
27
Biface Thinning Flake
28
Bipolar Flake
28
Blade Flake
28
Flake Fragment
28
iv

Shatter/Debris
28
BifaceBiface Fragment
28
Core/Core Fragment
29
Hammerstone
29
Projectile Point/Projectile Point Fragment
29
Retouched Flake
30
Scraper
30
Other Rock
30
Analysis of Bifacial Tool Breakage Patterns
30
Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Material
32
Analysis of Historic Material
32
Specialized Analyses
32
Flotation Processing
32
Radiocarbon Dating
33
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR) Dating
33
Phytolith Analysis
33
Geochemical Analysis
33
Sediment Analysis
34
Curation of Project Materials
34
VI. STRATIGRAPHY AND CULTURAL FEATURES
35
Site Boundary and Extent
35
Nature and Integrity of Deposits
35
Site Stratigraphy
37
Features
44
Feature 2
44
Feature 3
46
Feature 4
46
Feature 5
46
Feature 6
47
Feature 7
47
Feature 8
50
VII. HISTORIC ARTIFACTS 51
Glass 51
Ceramic 51
VIII. CERAMIC ARTIFACTS 52
Surface Treatment, Temper, and Sherd Color 52
Vessel Form and Vessels Represented 54
Temporal and Regional Associations 54
IX. LITHIC ARTIFACTS
56
Hafted Bifaces
56
Early Archaic
56
Middle Archaic
56
Late Archaic
61
Early Woodland
63
Late Woodland
66

Unhafted Bifaces
66
Stage I
66
Stage II
66
Stage III
66
Cores
68
Amorphous
70
Bipolar
71
Core Fragments
71
Expedient Tools
71
Retouched Flakes
71
Scrapers
72
Hammerstone
72
Unmodified Debitage
73
Unmodified Cobble/Chunk
76
Fire Cracked Rock
76
Lithic Raw Material Selection
76
Raw Materials Represented
76
Source Locations
81
Bifacial and Unifacial Tools
82
Cores and Debitage
83
Bifacial Breakage, Resharpening, and Reuse
83
Debitage Frequencies and Tool Production Patterns
87
X. PALEOENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 91
Paleoethnobotanical Remains 91
Phytolith Analysis 92
Geochemical Trends 93
XI. SITE CHRONOLOGY, COMPONENTS, AND PATTERN ANALYSIS 101
Radiocarbon and Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Dates 101
Chronology 101
Components Represented at the Spring Site 102
Horizontal Distribution of Artifacts and Components 103
Vertical Distribution of Artifacts and Components 105
XII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
110
Chronology
110
Environmental Reconstruction and Resource Availability
111
Material Culture
113
Subsistence
115
Component Seasonality, Function, and Settlement Plan
116
Social Organization and Inter -Regional Relationships
118
Conclusions
120
REFERENCES CITED 121
APPENDICES 137
Appendix 1: OSA Correspondence
Appendix 2: Paleoethnobotanical Report
Appendix 3: Phytolith Analysis Report
Appendix 4: Geochemical Analyses Report
Appendix 5: Normalization of Geochemical Data Report
vi

Appendix 6: Radiocarbon Analysis Report
Appendix 7: Oxidizable Carbon Ratio Analysis Report
Appendix 8: Artifact Catalogs
vii

FIGURES
1.
Location of 31AN60, Anson County, North Carolina.
2
2.
Artificial Pond at 31AN60, View North.
5
3.
Planted Pine at 31AN60, View East.
5
4.
Locus A at 31AN60, View North.
6
5.
Locus B at 31AN60, View Northeast.
6
6.
Plan Map of 31AN60 Showing Loci and Excavation Units.
36
7.
West Wall Profile of N80-81 E90 Showing Strata I and II in Locus A.
38
8.
View of N80-81 E90 West Wall in Locus A.
39
9.
View of N100 E97-98 South Wall in Locus A.
39
10.
South Wall Profile of N100 E96-98 Showing Strata I, IA, and H in Locus A.
40
11.
South and West Wall Profile of N106 E76-77 Showing Strata I, ilk, and II in Locus A.
41
12.
View of N106 E76 South Wall in Locus A.
42
13.
View of N4 E65 South Wall in Locus B.
42
14.
South Wall Profile of N4 E65 Showing Strata I and II in Locus B.
43
15.
Location of Features at 31AN60.
45
16.
Feature 7.
48
17.
View of South Wall Profile of Feature 7.
49
18.
Prehistoric Ceramic Artifacts from 31AN60
52
19.
Distribution of Prehistoric Ceramic Artifacts from 31AN60.
53
20.
Distribution of Early Archaic Projectile Points from 31AN60.
58
21.
Archaic and Woodland Projectile Points from 31AN60.
59
22.
Distribution of Middle Archaic Projectile Points from 31AN60.
60
23.
Distribution of Late Archaic Projectile Points from 31AN60.
62
24.
Archaic and Woodland Projectile Points from 31AN60.
63
25.
Distribution of Early Woodland Projectile Points from 31AN60.
64
26.
Distribution of Late Woodland Projectile Points from 31AN60.
67
27.
Stage I and Stage II Bifaces from 31AN60.
68
28.
Stage III Distal Biface Fragments from 31AN60.
69
29.
Stage III Medial and Proximal Biface Fragments from 31AN60.
69
30.
Amorphous Cores, Bipolar Cores, and Core Fragments from 31AN60.
70
31.
Retouched Flakes and Unifacial Scrapers from 31AN60.
72
32.
Distribution of Debitage Classes by Reduction Stage.
74
33.
Distribution of Cortical and Non -Cortical Debitage by Size.
75
34.
Distribution of Debitage Classes by Size.
76
35.
Proportion of Phase III Lithic Material Types.
77
36.
Distribution of Rhyolite and Quartz in Locus A.
78
37.
Distribution of Quartzite, Chert, and Chalcedony in Locus A.
80
38.
Distribution of Unidentified Raw Material in Locus A.
81
39.
Distribution of Unspecialized and Biface Thinning Flakes in Locus A.
90
40.
Geochemical Transect Across Artifact Concentration Areas in Locus A.
94
41.
Correlation of Barium and Artifact Density.
95
42.
Correlation of Zinc and Artifact Density.
96
43.
Correlation of Calcium and Artifact Density.
97
44.
Correlation of Strontium and Artifact Density.
98
45.
Correlation of Phosphorous and Artifact Density.
99
46.
Correlation of pH Value and Artifact Density.
100
47.
Projectile Point Frequency by Cultural Period.
102
48.
Frequency Distribution and Three -Dimensional Plot of Phase II and III Test Unit Artifacts.
104
viii

49. Vertical Distribution of Phase III Artifacts. 105
50. Frequency Distribution and Three —Dimensional Plot of Stratum I Artifacts. 107
51. Frequency Distribution and Three —Dimensional Plot of Stratum IA Artifacts. 108
52. Frequency Distribution and Three —Dimensional Plot of Stratum H Artifacts. 109
ix

TABLES
1. Features Identified at 31AN60.
2. Phase III Artifacts Recovered from 31AN60.
3. Unmodified Debitage by Category and Raw Material Type.
4. Unmodified Debitage by Category and Reduction Stage.
5. Projectile Point Breakage Patterns.
6. Unhafted Biface Breakage Patterns.
7. Paleoethnobotanical Remains from Feature 7.
44
57
73
74
85
86
91

I. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of Phase III data recovery excavations at the Spring Site (31AN60) in
the proposed Chambers Development of NC, Inc., Anson County Landfill, Anson County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The data recovery excavations were conducted December 8-19, 1997, January 12-16, 1998,
and April 15-17, 1998, by TRC Garrow Associates, Inc. (TRC), of Chapel Hill. This site is to be
impacted by the proposed Anson County Landfill, which has an approval for wetlands impacts by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Wilmington District (Action ID No. 199203131, 7 June
1996). The implementation of data recovery excavations at 31AN60 was required as a special condition
of that permit and have resulted in the mitigation of adverse impacts to the significant archaeological
resources at this site.
The data recovery investigations complied and were consistent with all pertinent federal and state
regulations, including, but not limited to, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992; the National Environment Policy Act of 1969; the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36
CFR 60, 800 et seq.); and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Treatment of Archaeological
Properties; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, released by the National Park Service in 1983; and the Guidelines for the Preparation of
Reports of Archeological Surveys and Evaluations, released by the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology in 1982 and revised in 1988.
The initial Phase I survey of the 3,300+ acre tracts was conducted in September and October 1991 (Gunn
and Wilson 1992). Subsequent Phase II testing investigations at the site identified three major loci.
Locus A contained the highest artifact density (88 per square meter) whereas Locus B displayed a
relatively low artifact density (4 per square meter). Locus C was investigated with 14 50-x-50-cm shovel
test pits (STPs) and one TU; two pieces of debitage were recovered from one STP in this portion of the
site. Testing investigations in Locus C determined that the artifacts in this locale likely were redeposited.
Since Loci A and B yielded intact cultural deposits and evidence of horizontal distribution of artifacts,
further investigations were recommend in these two areas of the site. Due to the artifact scarcity and lack
of integrity, no further work was recommended in Locus C. The North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (NCSHPO) subsequently concurred with the Phase II recommendations (David
Brook, letter of 11 January 1993; Appendix 1). In order to address numerous research issues concerning
the significant archaeological deposits at this National Register —eligible site, a comprehensive data
recovery plan was developed and approved by the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the COE.
The Phase III data recovery investigations of site 31AN60 were carried out under the direction of Tracy
L. Millis and were limited to Loci A and B, as outlined in the data recovery plan. The fieldwork included
the systematic excavation of 1-x-1-m test units across high, moderate, and low artifact concentration areas
so that a representative sample of all parts of the site could be obtained.
Following test unit excavations, multiple distinct artifact concentrations were identified: the largest and
densest activity area is located in the north—centrai portion of Locus A. A second large activity area is
represented by a high density of artifacts in the south-central portion of Locus A. Diagnostic artifacts
recovered from these two portions of the site indicate Late Archaic —Early Woodland period occupations.
Several smaller activity areas were defined in the western and eastern portions of Locus A and exhibited
moderate densities of artifacts. Diagnostic artifacts and other lithic tools were present in small numbers
from these smaller activity areas and indicate smaller, short-term occupations dating to the Early Archaic,
Middle Archaic, and Late Woodland periods.

,� /1V nrJr)�/.�
PAIN
� if rr• � :5
I`M
' 31AN60
�: _ �• � ��� — L � o'er—'�! � 1yi % - _�.� ! ( -- _ ' .. _ �) � `1 �\l'�, '` .,
4. 3 ! f/ iChmond-$turdivant
15°';.• ;' .'.� •�� J r.� a -�, i j, � I C — / � /'`S" J
28
1420
'N
�..
IL
260
10
�.: �/,gay 1� ;�� ���i � , ) - `tea /i .,'�' i ,', � �--•�:` _ ---., �
11.,�,( f•_ ,y��. Rad• .1;��.� 1I�' �c�� / 'r ] r`J� \j ' , f
V jl%iState D son
CP
CRT ' •i—/ I �(\ \ `11'� I' / ( / ,i - J �-
" / / L : Unicv r r
contour interval = 10 feet
0 mile ;
" C. North
— 0 f et 4000
0 kilometer 1
Map source: Polkton/Russellville, NC.
PROJECT AREA Quadrangle, 7.5 minute 1970
Figure 1. Location of Site 31AN60, Anson County, North Carolina
2

This report is organized in the following way. Chapter II presents information on the natural
environment. Chapter III presents information on the culture history of the project area, including
additional data on previous research in the area. Chapter IV outlines the research issues and various
research questions addressed during the data recovery investigations. Chapter V specifies the methods
used in this study. Information concerning stratigraphy and cultural features is presented in Chapter VI.
A discussion of historic artifacts can be found in Chapter VII, and ceramic artifacts are described in
Chapter VIII. Lithic artifacts are discussed in Chapter IX, and Chapter X presents information on the
paleoenvironment. Chapter XI discusses site chronology, represented components, and pattern analysis.
A summary of the research results and observations of the site is provided in Chapter XII. Appendix 1
contains correspondence with the Office of State Archaeology, and the paleoethnobotanical analysis
report can be found in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 contains the phytolith analysis report, and the
geochemical analysis report is presented in Appendix 4. The report detailing the normalization of
geochemical data is included in Appendix 5. The radiocarbon analysis report can be found in Appendix
6, and Appendix 7 contains the oxidizable carbon ratio analysis report. An artifact catalog is presented in
Appendix 8.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
SITE SETTING
Site 31AN60 is located in south—central North Carolina, approximately 6 miles west of Wadesboro, 0.6
mile west of Pinch Gut Creek, and 1 mile north of Highway 74. The site is approximately 400 m
northwest of Richmond-Sturdivant Cemetery, near the center of the proposed impact area for the
proposed Chambers Development of NC, Inc., Anson County Landfill. It is located at the confluence of
two unnamed tributaries -of Pinch Gut Creek and is situated on a dissected terrace that is traversed by an
ephemeral spring originating approximately 100 in upstream west of the site (see Figure 1). The flow of
the spring is blocked in the center of the site by a narrow earthen dam, which has impounded a small pond
of open water (Figure 2).
Vegetation at the site consists of a mature upland pine plantation with sparse undergrowth (Figure 3).
The general site area was planted in loblolly pine 25-30 years ago, and an aerial photograph of the area
taken in 1968 depicts the cleared condition of the uplands at the time (Chaffin 1992:6). Prior to planting
in 1969, the upland areas were old pastures. The upland hardwoods in the general project area were
removed in 1969 and planted with pine; the most recent planting of pine in the upland areas was in 1975
(Chaffin 1992:6). The area to the north and east of the site was once part of the Boylin Dairy, a large
mechanized dairy operation comprised of 400-450 head of cattle and multiple houses and. outbuildings
that operated until the late 1950s (Gunn and Wilson 1992). The pond is surrounded by a littoral zone
dominated by alder, red maple, and bulrush (Figures 4 and 5).
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY
The northern and western parts of Anson County are situated in the Piedmont physiographic region
(Fenneman 1938; Stuckey 1965:7), at the edge of the Wadesboro Triassic basin. Specifically, Site
31AN60 is located approximately 15 miles northwest of the escarpment that divides the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain physiographic provinces, and is considered to lie within the broad transition zone (Fall
Zone) that parallels the Fall Line. The Piedmont province, extending from southern New York to
Alabama, is a highly dissected plateau dominated by rounded hills and northeast —southwest -trending
ridges, characteristically resulting in a rolling landscape. In North Carolina, the Piedmont province has an
average width of approximately 125 miles and is bounded by the Blue Ridge Mountains to the west and
the Coastal Plain to the east. Generally, the Piedmont slopes towards the east from an approximate
elevation of 1500 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the base of Blue Ridge to about 300-600 feet
AMSL at the Fall Line of the Coastal Plain.
During the Triassic period, 180-230 million years ago (mya), the Triassic basin was a rift valley into
which sediments from the surrounding uplands poured. This accounts for the unusual bedrock and
surficial sediments in this area of the Piedmont. The topography of the region is undulating to hilly. In
the uplands there are some comparatively small areas of level or nearly level land and all the stream
bottoms are essentially level (Vanatta and McDowell 1917:11). Elevations on the landfill tract range
from about 230 ft AMSL along Brown and Pinch Gut creeks to 340-360 ft on several upland ridge tops.
4

A'jy'j"�'i,}q i1 � �7 1r�1a x+qs �4 s�a,.. x �h
I •t �a� � r ( s '« ?� ,�u�.�.. S � �.q.� Y ,
,Al �pbt ;?r t .'�gj �n� �� 1Jj ��aF .{ti �` �p•ytEa'i#�. �1(".eta #� ��� p� � f. a ¢ d,. °�.
��•�-' r}'_ E �, �.aB � t � '�A +� s�iaa :� � �, F #o y�f�$, 4 �,= � � �_ �y
.. �� � e° _.I �w, �• ,� � � tt ifitl� eaC,.4����-�s'�'�'� li,�,�i�j�e r s �7 � j "a�
'r'»A4 r x n.• '� ""° ,; '�;.;x i�.�. y� $ WZ
N4.
$;tit' § 4 gar $
y�°°>4,��a �'r$f � h,. � a =•,. .tea "°�"wr � ;ti � ie}.•�- L ,� "`�«
t
t°64
[ea � w M _� �"f + - � V q € E el ����� °`.z:'` • , °dam
E �.. ,a,..,,,s; .w s a?•,, "' ' i .':ksa9d`a,�n ma f. 'a. � ;Zi $« . w - � "m ; 4 : .
�d
��;
;
r �t .£ f �) E Ef � 'a• �� �' � t �� � �h { t$�i a� ..£.. � i's5� � �i,
.EE aYt�-
ry�',r i ��� � �, �.�. ; �r' �jxt � 01 { '�a.p' •'� �, - � Ga� x� '� � z"'`,t�
� �f , � � 3 e• I Z�3 '� t Ea .E:x& 33 a.
� b�� � �E�'<1�'#m ta. $ng YS �° •i s. x �a � 'b4e ,3 A " s e t<-, $ i; t�� ;�} f;t
'� a ��'�*'',�•� R•ys•� e �'�}$j�.zd`! .��� . 5��'}� d #3►.ay�' l a{� E .'aa,4'� y�]�Np7r� .`y, � E ` rt��� �� ,''�� I':?
` r r ;,'. F -w .' a � Z3, { ara,,. �ti'�s".h ; ��'�'� ��',� r'� $p `,_ �j ^�•,i.�, �' � �s
�•rr.���II FFF+++��� �eq$�, � F l'F 3 in d+c?
� �. ,.-. �a Y� i. 3;aR+*�`g�a"` i" „r, r`rr^t •'`�i W ..-a la $� �,.'

.t#td�'`°�,
s tj� A 4Lc7 s r` a' tri $..bra ME
l°��� a��
ON
.!
tiSe t t ih�}#t
j Iq 1'gj(p� t� .. ,+ ! ,+k§ '§ E7 .g s F • t t� Y �9y �'� R a. r, r
�14
Si �sf�
t
r�.gTj{}#9
a¢�9
64
fix. i. �i.. $ � �•. DPP tt' �f '�'�. � �'6fE# d ; uA� �.i :E+ 5 P yx t J.I
fA ith#
' � �' ��'!�.{ R ty8� 3 � F - t.�R f .+,r^•n. Ae'.o!5sy,�� � f.��3"�. �.i S
.Hj �'�' fTf d Tt �5�'`4, ix - > i- f •:yq � P l�^1R �
r4&
0. ,:.k - ^' i ,F°�� x `�`3t a-'T .a A.. ..£1•.,: `;3 4 krt;-`f 't��. � '�'�;
x
a
North.
ji G
�"4`.�x`d�.T,',�a+�zi; ` 1 E x-.,�':�$}'';$ Ss" F•+• ; �. f i�=-;,iS+ �"a#a`
fo,14#;
i
a
�� - l �a ,r^�'tra F �. ! o t t a •� ��'Ft#'�,�r 'iii: ,�.
TgAl&
l
°
3
S 3 gs 7 4 4
f
�s $`i. r�� pqxyg{ ."� 4 }. f � .., _; � ro•_xa & z# .1e �t}r�4s < ,t, I xr � s;�R
a f.� R e z I� •2 t A'i is x "! , ' � ii � ��gf �`ai t dF t Pi�s;.�s ,�+�r�t'�. a #
� � l,s � aat> �� F lk' a 7 t� >•� ;'�i5� ��t [fag �,,� ( a �"� ' � �a ;{�� .eGi �"�
A i
RL8} iq,
f
a•rowa`° �j � 1 t • � 't•"°T' 'i� fr �� �f .,1 � r .f � .. t ,t +ate.. s, � 4x
�E.»�,..,;���� •i`¢ -k t �'y�'f' Fk� Ti . Q-�- 1 _,! '%5. 5 : ^q,�g, .r 3 � � I ..:^":ec°t.,".. _
�. 7�,��, M a ����,�„�n,�; fir �° �' '� c...�..+v: ..:sY. - _•. �'§a.�xr, •..
Y ...F,.y z'O �i..✓
y�C
f �+

Site 31AN60 is situated to the east of a dominant northeast —southwest -trending dissected ridge that
extends through the proposed landfill development tract between Brown Creek and Pinch Gut Creek. The
hilltops along this ridge are generally less than 380 feet AMSL and the site is located at an approximate
elevation of 280 feet AMSL on an eastward —southeastward -sloping terrace.
Brown Creek and its tributaries drain the landfill tract. Site 31AN60 is located at the confluence of two
unnamed tributaries of Pinch Gut Creek and is traversed by an ephemeral drainage originating
approximately 100 m upstream from the site to the west. Pinch Gut Creek flows along the east side of the
project area and joins Brown Creek northeast of site 31AN60. Brown Creek flows to the northeast from
that point and joins the Pee Dee River at a point 14.5 km (9 miles) away. The Pee Dee flows to the
southeast and meets the Atlantic Ocean near Georgetown, South Carolina.
GEOLOGY AND PEDOLOGY
North Carolina has been divided into two major geologic divisions: the eastern Coastal Plain and the
western Piedmont and Mountain regions. In general, the Piedmont is underlain by gneiss, schist, slate,
and metamorphosed volcanic rocks into which have intruded minor masses of basic igneous rocks (Butler
and Ragland 1969; Griffin 1974; Stuckey and Steele 1953). The study area is more specifically situated
on the extreme western edge of the Wadesboro Sub -Basin. This sub -basin dates to the Triassic period
(ca. 180-230 mya) and is the southernmost portion of the larger Durham—Wadesboro Basin that stretches
from near the North Carolina —Virginia border into the northern portion of South Carolina (Bain and
Harvey 1977). The Durham—Wadesboro basin is bounded to the east by the Jonesboro fault and to the
west by the Carolina Slate Belt. It is comprised of four substructures: the Durham Sub -Basin, the
Sanford Sub -Basin, the Colon Cross -Structure, and the Wadesboro Sub -Basin. The Durham Sub -Basin,
the Sanford Sub -Basin, and the Colon Cross -Structure are separated from the Wadesboro Sub -Basin by a
sub -Triassic nonconformity that intrudes into the eastern portion of Montgomery County and the central —
western portion of Moore County. The Wadesboro Sub -Basin is comprised of metamorphosed siltstone,
sandstone, breccias, and related sedimentary rocks (North Carolina Geological Survey [NCGS] 1985).
Bain and Harvey (1977) describe the Durham—Wadesboro basin as surrounded, and possibly underlain,
by metamorphic crystalline rocks. The basin may also contain fluvial sediments deposited from the
surrounding slate belts.
In the immediate project area, the Triassic sediments consist of conglomerate, fanglomerate, sandstone,
and mudstone of the Chatham Group. The Chatham Group is bounded to the west by a ridge along the
east side of Brown Creek containing a localized outcrop of Carolina Slate Belt metavolcanic rocks. such
as metamorphosed sandstone, conglomerate, slate, and volcanic rocks. The main body of the Carolina
Slate Belt, which dates to the Cambrian period (ca. 500-570 mya), is located approximately 2 miles
northwest of the Spring Site and extends about 40 miles north. Researchers suggest that the Carolina
Slate Belt may have formed in an "island -arc environment in which slow, deep -water deposition of
sediments, largely of distant volcanic derivation, was locally and intermittently interrupted by massive
deposition of volcanic material from nearby volcanoes" (Goldsmith et al. 1989:7). Since most of the
rocks in the Carolina Slate Belt are metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic flow rocks that have been
flooded and intruded by Triassic age diabase dikes, researchers have noted that the term "slate" is a
misnomer: true slate is not widespread in this belt (Novick 1978:426).
The bedrock in the general area of the site is composed of bedded argillite and Wadesboro basin
sedimentary rock, such as conglomerate, sandstone, graywacke, siltstone, and mudstone. Two north-
northwest —trending diabase dikes are located in the immediate vicinity of the site area. These features are

post -Triassic in age and are not massive or homogenous. One dike is located approximately 46 m (150
feet) to the east of 31AN60, whereas a second dike is located approximately 274 in (900 feet) to the west
of the site. These dikes are located approximately 3-21 m (10-70 feet) below surface, with a substantial
amount of float material comprised of diabase pebbles and cobbles present in the surficial soil layers
(Grant Tew, personal communication, 1998).
Apparent residuum from both of these formations was identified during the data recovery investigations.
Pieces of weathered, naturally occurring quartz and sandstone apparently derived from weathered
conglomerates were observed on the surface at 31AN60. Very few pieces of naturally occurring stone
were observed in gravel deposits of nearby streams.
No modern soil survey is available for Anson County; however, unpublished data collected by the Brown
Creek Soil Conservation Service in Wadesboro indicate that the Spring Site is encompassed within the
White Store—Mayodan soil association. This soil association consists of well -drained to moderately well -
drained soils that have firm to very firm clayey subsoils. Specifically, the site area is comprised of
Creedmoor fine sandy loam (CrB). This soil series is gently sloping, very deep, moderately well -drained
to somewhat poorly drained soils located on upland slopes of 2 to 8 percent. This soil type formed in
residuum from fine-grained Triassic material and has a fine sandy loam surface layer overlying a sandy
clay loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam subsoil (Robert Horton, Jr., personal communication, 1998).
Data provided by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and an early -twentieth-century soil survey
(Vanatta and McDowell 1917) indicate that the soils of the Brown Creek drainage basin were eroded
during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries because of cotton farming. As a consequence of
the severe erosion, Brown Creek was the site of the first SCS district in the nation in 1937 (Hill 1990;
Medley 1976). The primary remedy for the erosion was the planting of trees, which was largely
accomplished by the Works Projects Administration. In 1934, Anson County was planted in 101,565
acres of principal field crops. After the district was established, this dwindled to about 30,000 acres
(Robert Horton, Jr., personal communication to Joel Gunn 1991; Soil Conservation Service [SCS] 1937).
FLORA AND FAUNA
The study area is located in the Atlantic Slope section of the Oak -Pine Forest region (Braun 1950). The
forests of the Oak -Pine Forest region are entirely secondary and are now characterized by predominant
oak and hickory species. Pine species are still a key element of these forests, but were more prominent in
the original communities. White and post are the most common species of oak; other tree types usually
mixed with these include birch, black willow, cottonwood, sycamore, and sweet gum along drainage
bottoms and beech, tuliptree, red maple, walnut, and black cherry on the upland slopes (Braun 1950:265).
Historically, the forests of the region have been drastically altered by clear -cutting, agriculture, and other
types of development. Little or no primary forest vegetation remains in the Piedmont section, so there is
considerable variety in the secondary communities (Braun 1950:243). Many areas now exhibit only
secondary and tertiary growth. A diverse pattern of forest communities can be found in the Piedmont
section of North Carolina, including white oak -black oak; white oak -black oak-tuliptree; chestnut oak;
and chestnut oak found in association with other oaks, pine, and pine -oak communities. In general, the
Piedmont woodland of North Carolina is composed predominantly of a variety of oaks, including
chestnut, white, black, red, post, and blackjack. White oaks tend to predominate near ravines, while post
oak and blackjack oak are more common in poorer soils where there is relatively impermeable subsoil or
where erosion has been extreme (Braun 1950:265). Aside from the dominant oaks, other species found in
this section include scarlet oak, willow oak, river birch, black will, cottonwood, sycamore, tuliptree, red

maple, sweet gum, white and winged elms, ash, dogwood, hickory, and wild cherry (Braun 1950:262-
267). Beech is the predominant mesophytic species, with white oak, tuliptree, red maple, walnut, black
cherry, and occasionally sugar maple, associated with mixed mesophytic forest communities of the Oak -
Pine Forest region (Braun 1950:266).
Presently, the variety of plant species is much reduced from aboriginal conditions, or even those that
existed early in this century. There is very little natural or undisturbed upland habitat in the general
location of the Spring Site. With the exception of slopes and steep bluffs, the majority of the proposed
landfill area is reserved for timber production. In fact, most of the upland habitat in the project area was
pasture until it was planted in loblolly pine in 1969. Some bottomland hardwoods were logged at this
time and also planted in pine. Presently, the steep bluffs and ravine slopes associated with Brown Creek
and its tributaries support a relatively mature hardwood forest dominated by white oak, southern red oak,
chestnut oak, and pignut hickory; beech is present on lower slopes (Chaffin 1992).
Prior to Euro—American settlement the varied environments of Anson County undoubtedly supported a
rich and diverse faunal assemblage, including buffalo, bear, panther, elk, and wolf (Lefler 1967). Other
potential game species present in the area prehistorically include white-tailed deer, rabbit, raccoon, and
several species of squirrel, bobcat, opossum, and black bear. Numerous avian species, particularly turkey,
were also widespread in the area prior to historic period modifications, and the area was also a major
flyway for migratory birds, such as the now -extinct passenger pigeon.
Because of different landforms and a diversity of soils, abundant animal species, although less diverse
than prehistoric times, are presently found in Anson County and south—central North Carolina in general.
These include beaver, rabbits, red and gray fox, turkey, raccoon, opossum, squirrel, white-tailed deer; a
variety of waterfowl, particularly on the streams and ponds in the county; and numerous species of fish,
reptiles, amphibians, and songbirds.
PALEOENVIRONMENTAL RECONSTRUCTION
Since human occupation of the North American continent spans two geological epochs, and because
human/environmental interaction has been shown to be critical to an overall understanding of cultural
adaptations, it is necessary to consider changes that occurred in climatic and ecological conditions during
this time. The occupation of the New World is known to have occurred from the latter part of the
Pleistocene (glacial) epoch into the Holocene (recent) epoch, spanning 13,000 years. The transition
between these epochs itself is particularly important because it is at this temporal threshold that some of
the most dramatic changes in environmental and ecological conditions occurred.
The contemporary climate and vegetation of Anson County, as elsewhere, are the products of a long and
complex process of natural and human -induced change. The average annual temperatures in the study
area were considerably colder during the glacial period, which lasted from ca. 23,000 to 13,000 B.C. The
climate of the Pleistocene terrain was probably characterized by relatively cool summers and harsh
winters. At that time, forests of the region, including the study area, were covered by a northern
coniferous forest in which pines and spruce were dominant, with some mixed hardwood (Delcourt and
Delcourt 1983; Whitehead 1973; Wright 1981). It is probable that the overall plant and animal
communities were more complex and "disharmonious" than at present and were composed of a
combination of modern and extinct species (Graham and Lundelius 1984; Kelly and Todd 1988:232). In
general, regional environments seem to have been more "patchy" and less homogeneous than the modern
eastern woodlands.

The modern faunal and floral communities of the region were becoming established as early as 12,500
B.P. (Delcourt 1978) as the climate warmed and precipitation increased during the period from ca. 13,000
to 8,000 B.C. This period of rather dramatic ecological change coincided closely with the earliest
movement of human groups into the eastern United States and was also the period during which the first
people arrived in North Carolina. During this time (the Late Wisconsin glacial period), the patchy, park-
like coniferous (Spruce -Pine regime) forests of the full glacial period were replaced by northern
hardwoods (Oak -Hickory regime) as dominant overstory species (Bryson et al. 1970; Watts 1975, 1980;
Whitehead 1973). The most apparent modification to regional communities during this ecological change
was the extinction of numerous species. Meltzer and Mead (1983) suggest that by 10,000 B.P., as many
as 35 different genera of mammals may have already vanished from North America. The period from ca.
6,000 to 3,000 B.C. is referred to as the Altithermal or Hypsithermal, and was a period of continued
warming, with decreased precipitation (Bryson et al. 1970; Watts 1975). By 5000 B.C., the sea level had
risen considerably as a result of an increase of average temperature (Brooks et al. 1989). This rise in sea
level eventually affected the gradients and courses of large streams. The dominant overstory vegetation
that survived was the oak -hickory forest (Watts 1975; Whitehead 1973). The climate since ca. 3,000 B.C.
has cooled slightly, with a possible increase in precipitation. The Oak -Hickory forests decreased in size
and became increasingly intermixed with pines (Wharton 1977). Pleistocene megafauna gave way to deer
and smaller mammals as a result of the changing environment. These floral and faunal changes had a
marked effect on the cultural adaptations made through time by the regional inhabitants during prehistory.
Those adaptations are reflected in the known artifact assemblages for each temporal period. The earliest
settlers of North Carolina reported that large stands of yellow pine were present in the Oak -Hickory
forests of the Piedmont. It is not known at this time if those stands were products of natural forces or the
result of Indian hunting methods that used fire to drive and concentrate game.
In addition to these major climatic changes, climatological studies over the past few decades have shown
that important changes also occur over much shorter intervals. It has become increasingly apparent that
changes at annual and .decadal time scales have an effect on human adaptation. Annual climatic
measurements are not available for the whole of human occupation of the area, although they do
encompass the Middle and Late Woodland and historic periods. Stahle (Stahle and Cleveland 1996;
Stahle et al. 1988) has found that bald cypress tree rings are good indicators of climate in the Southeast.
Thousand -year -plus tree ring series have been analyzed for all of the mid- and south Atlantic states, and
work is ongoing for development of a year -by -year precipitation chronology for the last 10-15 centuries.
The sources of tree rings nearest to the project area are along the Black River in North Carolina, 120
miles to the south-southeast. The findings apply to a broad geographic area far beyond the Black River,
however, as precipitation has been found to correlate with the tree rings from Virginia to Georgia.
10

III. CULTURAL OVERVIEW
PREHISTORIC PERSPECTIVE
North Carolina has been inhabited for over 12,000 years and has experienced several major changes in the
cultural traditions of its residents. The discussion that follows is a brief outline of the major recognized
prehistoric and historic periods of this area of present-day North Carolina. Coe's (1964, 1995)
investigations of the prehistoric cultures of the North Carolina Piedmont were a pioneering effort on
which the cultural sequence for the project area is based. More recent research (e.g., Oliver 1981, 1983,
1985, 1992) has expanded on earlier observations, especially concerning the latter part of the prehistoric
sequence, but the general sequence that Coe described remains valid for the region. The prehistory of the
project area can be divided into four basic periods: Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippian.
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000-8,000 B.C.)
The first indisputable evidence for human occupation in the southeastern United States is during the
Paleoindian period, from approximately 10,000 to 8,000 B.C. The Paleoindian occupation of the
Southeast is known predominantly from surface sites. Paleoindian groups are presumed to have been
highly mobile with a subsistence strategy based on migratory (and now -extinct) large animals, such as
mastodons, but relying on other plant and animal food resources as well (Meltzer and Smith 1986).
Settlements are thought to include small temporary camps and rarer base camps occupied by loosely
organized bands.
Diagnostic Paleoindian projectile points includes the Clovis, Hardaway, and Hardaway -Dalton types (Coe
1964; Ward 1983). Over the course of the Paleoindian period, fluted point forms underwent a general
reduction in size, and true fluting gave way to basal thinning. Locally, terminal Paleoindian assemblages
are identified by Hardaway/Dalton projectile point forms, which are broad, thin, triangular bifaces with
deeply concave bases and shallow side notches (Coe 1964:64) that are thought to date from ca. 8,500-
7,800 B.C. (Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway complex, consisting of Dalton -like points and preforms, was
first identified at the Hardaway site on the Yadkin River, approximately 38.6 km (23 miles) northeast of
the project area. This point type has been recovered from site 31AN62 on the Anson Landfill Tract (P.
Webb 1995) and also has been found in buried deposits at sites located on the lower Haw River in
Chatham County and elsewhere (Claggett and Cable 1982).
Archaic Period (ca. 8,000-800 B.C.)
The Archaic period began around 8,000 B.C., perhaps precipitated in part by a distinctly Holocene episode
of climate. Warmer global temperatures created warmer and drier conditions in the Southeast, which
precluded then -traditional Pleistocene lifeways. There was a concomitant shift in surface vegetation in
the southern coastal areas from northern Spruce -Pine forests to mixed deciduous forests and then to the
southern climax forests of today (Whitehead 1965). Coastal areas were characterized by less marshland
and open water, and were more like modern local environments.
The Archaic period left a higher density and horizontal dispersal of archaeological remains than the
preceding Paleoindian period. Overall, this period is characterized by a reliance on large animals and
11

wild plant resources, which became increasingly stabilized and broadly based during the Holocene.
Group organization was presumed to be fairly mobile, making use of seasonally available resources in
different areas of the Southeast. Group size gradually increased during this period, culminating in a fairly
complex and populous society in the Late Archaic.
The Early Archaic, ca. 8,000-6,000 B.C., is subdivided into the earlier corner -notched and later bifurcate
traditions. No artifacts of nonlithic raw materials have been found to represent this cultural tradition.
This period is marked by the end of the glacial climate and extinction of numerous large animals.
Throughout the Southeast there is a notable increase in site size and frequency after Paleoindian times.
Piedmont investigations, such as those at the Haw River sites in Chatham County, North Carolina,
suggest a tendency toward a collector —gatherer strategy (Claggett and Cable 1982). Populations appear to
have been highly mobile and may have coalesced around available resources during the winter months
(Anderson and Hanson 1988). Anderson (1996:173) suggests that there was an increase in the use of
seasonal camps during this period. There are also striking lithic artifact similarities throughout the area,
but tremendous variety in site size, content, and function. Ward (1983:65) interprets this diversity as
evidence of an ever-increasing adaptive radiation and specialization in a varied post -Pleistocene
environment.
The Middle Archaic, ca. 6,000-3,000 B.C., can be distinguished from the Early Archaic by the more
frequent recovery of ground stone artifacts and a less diverse chipped stone tool kit. Diagnostic bifaces
that occur during this period include Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford types (Coe 1964; Blanton
and Sassaman 1989). It is assumed that population density increased during the Middle Archaic, but
small hunting and gathering bands probably still formed the primary social and economic units.
Populations during this period appear to have relied primarily on a foraging —based economy (Anderson
1996:174). Larger sites tend to occur near or along river floodplains, but numerous small sites, probably
utilized for specialized resource extraction, are characteristic of upland locales. A larger number of
Middle Archaic sites are known in the Piedmont region than the Coastal Plain, a fact that Anderson
(1996:174) attributes to the spread of pine during the Middle Holocene.
The Late Archaic period is generally dated ca. 3,000-800 B.C. It can be viewed as the period in which
some groups were living for long periods of time in single, strategically placed locations, and pursued a
set of lifeways that laid the foundation for the establishment of villages in later periods. Existing
information suggests that the population during this period was relatively dense, and that the largest
settlements occurred along the major river systems. A fission—fusion settlement pattern has been
proposed for this period in the Middle Atlantic and Southeast regions (Mouer 1990, 1991; Sassaman et al.
1990:312-314). This model is characterized by large population aggregation in major stream valleys
during the spring and summer months, with group dispersal into smaller tributaries during the fall and
winter months.
Savannah River (Coe 1964) projectile points and knives are the most common diagnostic biface type
found, but steatite bowls and a number of other artifact types are also unique to this period. Stallings
Island fiber -tempered ceramics were manufactured as early as 2,500 B.C. in South Carolina (Anderson et
al. 1982). A continuation of previous Late Archaic settlement strategies, with the addition of pottery,
seems to have occurred.
Woodland Period (ca. 800 B.C.—A.D.1600)
The Woodland period began about 800 B.C. and continued in some areas until European contact. In other
parts of the Carolina Piedmont, such as the Pee Dee drainage, Woodland occupants were displaced by
Mississippian populations around A.D. 950-1050 (Oliver 1992:237).
12

Woodland period occupations are marked by increasing sedentism and improvements in food storage and
preparation technologies. Subsistence strategies were a continuation of earlier hunter -forager ways, with
an increased reliance on the cultivation of native plants. Religious life, as evidenced by increased
ceremonialism and the construction of burial mounds, became more sophisticated during the Woodland
period. Large triangular projectile points are diagnostic of this period; this change in point style may be
linked with the introduction of bow and arrow technology into eastern North America. Ceramics became
more refined and regional differentiation of wares, particularly by temper, paste, and surface decoration,
became manifest during the period.
The earliest Woodland occupations are represented by Badin and Yadkin ceramic series. This pottery
type consists of sand- or grit -tempered cord- and fabric -impressed, and occasionally check -stamped,
pottery (Coe 1964:27-29). The lifeways of these peoples seem to have changed little from those of their
Late Archaic predecessors. The Early Woodland (ca. 2800-1500 B.P.) occupation of the region continued
into the subsequent Middle Woodland period, characterized by different ceramics —cord -marked, fabric -
impressed, and check -stamped, with coarse sand or crushed quartz tempering (Coe 1964:30-32). 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 (1983:66-69), however,
argues for a more sedentary and undifferentiated pattern.
The Middle Woodland period (ca. 1500-900 B.P.) 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 some kind of a village/base camp specialization dichotomy in the settlement patterning.
Ceramic artifacts dating to this period represent the Yadkin and Uwharrie series, which include coarse
sand- or crushed quartz -tempered cord- and fabric -impressed surface treatments, as well as check -
stamped ceramics.
In many parts of the Southeast, the Late Woodland occupations are marked by increasing sedentism and
improvements in food storage and preparation technologies and the development of complex tribal,
chiefdom, and other political forms. Throughout much of the Piedmont, the Late Woodland period (ca.
900-500 B.P.) marks the later states of the Badin-Yadkin-Uwharrie sequence proposed by Coe (1964).
Ceramic artifacts of the Late Woodland period in the Piedmont are representative of the Dan River and
Caraway pottery series. These ceramic types are characterized by fine sand tempering with plain or net -
impressed exterior surface treatment and smoothed interior surfaces. In the Pee Dee basin, however,
Siouan -speaking Yadkin groups appear to have been displaced by migrants from the south, known
archaeologically as the Pee Dee culture (Oliver 1992:8).
Mississippian Period (ca. A.D. 1000-1600)
The Pee Dee drainage is the locus of the only sizable Mississippian manifestation in Piedmont North
Carolina. Described as the Pee Dee culture, this development was first recognized by Coe in 1936.
Subsequent work at the Town Creek Mound site, located about 35.4 km (22 miles) northeast of the
project area, by Coe (1995) and at additional sites by Oliver (1992) has produced considerable
information about the nature of the Pee Dee occupation. The Pee Dee culture has archaeological affinities
with the Savannah Phase in Georgia (Oliver 1992). The Pee Dee maintained a complex socio-political
organization, exhibited by stratified societies with warrior, priest, and chiefly classes. The Pee Dee
13

displayed highly developed ceremonialism and engaged in ritual and mortuary activities at platform
mounds that served as ceremonial centers.
Sites of the Pee Dee culture are situated in an approximately 600-square-mile part of the southern North
Carolina Piedmont, encompassing parts of present-day Anson, Richmond, Stanly, and Montgomery
counties. The Town Creek Mound is the best-known Pee Dee site, but over 60 outlying villages and
hamlets are also known (Oliver 1992:254-255). Three successive Pee Dee phases have been identified:
Teal (A.D. 950-1200), Town Creek (A.D. 1200-1400), and Leak (A.D. 1400-1600). The Town Creek site
was the focus of ceremonial activities by the early part of the Town Creek phase, but by the Leak phase
the ceremonial focus of the society had shifted to outlying villages. The Town Creek site included a
platform mound and temple, living quarters for priests, and a mortuary area. The Pee Dee occupation of
the Piedmont appears to have ended about A.D. 1600, and was replaced by Siouan -speaking descendants
of the earlier inhabitants of the area (Oliver 1992). Siouan speakers were apparently present in the area at
the time of earliest European contact, but little is known of their occupations. Increasing contact with
Europeans during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries eventually led to the disintegration of Native
American cultures. Diseases such as measles and smallpox were transmitted by European explorers and
colonists and proved devastating to the indigenous cultures, ultimately precipitating a rapid decrease in
the Native American population.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Since the passage of cultural resources management legislation in the 1960s and 1970s, many
archaeological projects have been conducted in Anson County. The following discussion presents a brief
overview of other archaeological research in the area. Several of those projects have been associated with
proposed sewer line or bridge construction or similar activities. In the mid-1970s, Peter P. Cooper
(1976a) surveyed proposed sewer facilities east of Wadesboro and identified three sites, and Ward (1977)
surveyed the site of the proposed Sneedsboro Power Plant. More recently, Hargrove (1989a) surveyed a
proposed quarry east of Wadesboro. Projects associated with bridge construction or replacement include
surveys by Padgett (1986a, 1986b) and Satterfield and Joy (1993). The latter project was located on
Brown Creek immediately northeast of the present project area, but did not identify any sites. In addition,
Joy (1994) has conducted Phase II testing at 31AN165, located on Brown Creek several kilometers
northeast of the present project area. That project documented a multicomponent prehistoric and historic
site, including nineteenth-century wooden and rock dams and twentieth-century bridge remains.
A number of other projects have involved survey at the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. An initial
survey of portions of the refuge was undertaken by Cooper (1976b). A subsequent survey (Garrow and
Watson 1979) identified 39 sites. All but one of the sites were found to have been destroyed by plowing
and erosion (Garrow and Watson 1979:16). A more recent survey (Anderson 1992) examined 300 acres
and located 52 sites. Only a small number of diagnostic artifacts were recovered; these items dated to the
Early Archaic through Late Archaic/Early Woodland periods.
In addition to the compliance -oriented work, other research has also taken place in Anson County and the
surrounding area. In the 1970s, Cooper conducted poorly reported excavations at the Trestle site
(31AN19), a multi -component site on the Pee Dee River (Oliver 1992:71-72). Considerable work has
also taken place at the Teal site, a large Pee Dee culture settlement in the Pee Dee floodplain. Several
seasons of work at the Teal site have uncovered features and deposits dating to the Pee Dee culture and to
an earlier Yadkin phase occupation (Oliver 1992:175-234).
14

Daniel (1993, 1994) has presented a model of Early Archaic settlement patterns within the Piedmont
based on his work at the Hardaway site, located approximately 38.6 km (24 miles) northeast of the project
area. On the basis of his research, population movements during the Early Archaic period were
predicated on rhyolite procurement, specifically at Morrow Mountain. It is hypothesized that annual
movements and seasonal settlement patterns were not dependent on specific drainage basins, but rather
that extraction of rhyolite was the focal point of land use during this time period. Daniel's research of
Early Archaic settlement patterns and their interrelationship with procurement sites has allowed him to
document approximately 27 quarry sites within the Uwharrie Mountains of Montgomery, Stanly, and
Randolph counties (Daniel and Butler 1991, 1996). Data obtained from these investigations indicated that
the Uwharrie Mountains were the major source of rhyolite during the Early Archaic period (Daniel
1994:222-244). Morrow Mountain appears to have served as the most important Piedmont stone source
until the Middle and Late Archaic periods. By this time, lithic preferences appear to have shifted to the
use of porphyritic rhyolite, which is somewhat inferior in quality to Morrow Mountain rhyolite (Daniel
and Butler 1996:32).
Previous Research at 31AN60
Site 31AN60 was initially identified during a Phase I reconnaissance survey of the proposed Anson
County Regional Landfill conducted by TRC Garrow (then Garrow & Associates, Inc.) in September and
October 1991 (Gunn and Wilson 1992). Over 3,300 acres were investigated within three tracts (Sites 1,
11, and 12) that were targeted for proposed development. Site 12 was ultimately selected as the proposed
development tract, and an intensive Phase I survey was conducted on this tract between November 1991
and January 1992.
Twenty-eight 30-cm diameter shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated around the perimeter of the pond
and below the dam during the Phase I survey of 31AN60 (Gunn and Wilson 1992). Ten culturally
positive STPs yielded 34 prehistoric artifacts, including 30 flakes, two biface fragments, a core, and a
Yadkin Fabric Impressed sherd of Early -Middle Woodland origin.
The Phase II testing investigations, conducted in September 1992, consisted of the excavation of 80 50-x-
50-cm STPs on a 10-m grid placed across the three major loci identified during the previous
investigations (Guan 1992). Locus A was investigated with 35 STPs and 3 1-x-1-m test units. This part
of the site yielded 931 artifacts. These include a Late Archaic Savannah River projectile point; a Gypsy
Stemmed projectile point assigned to the Early Woodland period; three biface fragments; a Badin Cord
Marked sherd dating to the Early Woodland to early Middle Woodland period; a Yadkin Fabric
Impressed sherd of Early -Middle Woodland origin; and an unidentified grit tempered ceramic sherd. The
average artifact density in Locus A was 22 per positive STP (or 88 per square meter), with artifact
concentrations ranging from a single artifact in Shovel Test N110 E90 to 202 artifacts recovered from
Test Unit 5.
Locus B displayed a relatively low artifact density (four artifacts per square meter) compared to Locus A.
Twenty-one STPs and one test unit were excavated in this locus, and 18 artifacts were recovered from 12
STPs and the test unit. These artifacts included 16 pieces of debitage and two bifaces. In general, one, or
occasionally two, artifacts were recovered from each positive shovel test, with only one artifact recovered
from Test Unit 1.
Locus C was investigated with 14 STPs and one test unit; two pieces of debitage were recovered from one
STP. Although Locus C contained the original cluster of artifacts identified during the Phase I survey, the
Phase II testing determined that the artifacts in this locale were likely redeposited. Due to the artifact
scarcity and lack of integrity, no further work was recommended in Locus C (Guan 1992:44, 47).
15

The combined Phase I and II data indicate that 31AN60 is divided into three discrete loci, one located on
each side of the spring/pond and one located east of the pond. Locus A, north of the pond, measures
approximately 60 x 80 m (4,800 square meters), whereas Locus B, south of the pond, measures
approximately 30 x 70 m (2,100 square meters). Locus C is located near the stream confluence at the
eastern end of the site and measures approximately 50 x 50 in (2,500 square meters). Cultural deposits at
Loci A and B extend to approximately 20-25 centimeters below surface (cmbs), whereas Locus C
artifacts represents redeposited materials.
During the Phase I and H investigations, the stratigraphy at 31AN60 was identified as relatively shallow
residual soils that have been severely eroded. Stratum I is described as a 2-cm layer of very thin leaf and
root mat overlying Stratum 11, comprised of a 12-20-cm-thick layer of organic topsoil that overlay sterile
saprolite subsoil deposits. At the time of those investigations, Strata I and II were thought to be
unplowed. A subsequent field visit to the site prior to initiation of the data recovery investigations,
however, indicated that Stratum I represents a modern development of humic material overlying a
shallow plowzone (Stratum II) and that Stratum III (B horizon) represents the only intact soil deposit.
Two features were identified at 31AN60 during testing, both in Locus A. Feature 1 was encountered in
Test Unit 3 (N70 E100) at the base of the plowzone (Stratum 11). This feature consisted of a light scatter
of fire cracked rock with no clear boundaries. Feature 2 was discovered in STP 33, located at N90 E60.
This feature was encountered at the base of Stratum H, approximately 12 cmbs, and consisted of a pit of
undetermined function. This feature extended outside of the STP boundaries; therefore, exact dimensions
of Feature 2 could not be determined. The portion of the feature fill contained within STP 33 was
excavated and found to contain 11 artifacts, including nine flakes, a biface, and a Badin projectile point,
which upon further assessment was determined to represent a late -stage biface.
Data obtained from the Phase I and II investigations at 31AN60 demonstrated the presence of
components, primarily dating to the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods, with a minor occupation
possibly dating to the Middle Woodland period. Artifacts primarily occurred within Loci A and B and
appeared to be confined to the plowzone layer (Strata I and II), with intact cultural features extending into
the subsoil horizon (Stratum III). Aside from artifacts directly associated with cultural features, no
cultural material was recovered from Stratum III.
Following the testing and site assessment investigations the researchers determined that 31AN60 contains
substantial information concerning the prehistoric occupation of Anson County, and could provide
important data relating to a variety of research topics (Guars 1992). Consequently, this site was
recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion
D, because of its potential to yield scientifically significant information. The OSA concurred and
requested that adverse effects to the site be mitigated prior to the proposed construction (David Brook,
letter of 11 January 1993; Appendix 1). The development and implementation of a data recovery plan for
this site was requested by the COE, Wilmington District as a special condition for inclusion in the landfill
permit authorization (G. Wayne Wright, letter of 7 June 1996). A data recovery plan outlining a number
of research goals was subsequently submitted for agency review and approved by the OSA and the COE
(David Brook, letter of 9 October 1997; Ernest W. Jahnke, letter of 21 October 1997; Appendix 1).
16

IV. RESEARCH GOALS
RESEARCH ISSUES
The research design for the data recovery investigations at 31AN60 was developed following a review of
selected regional literature, including Garrow and Watson (1979) and Anderson's (1992) research at the
Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, and other studies (e.g., Cooper 1976a, 1976b; Gunn and Wilson 1992;
Guan 1992; Hall and Littleton 1979; Hargrove 1989a; Ward 1977; P. Webb 1995). In addition, a number
of individuals familiar with the archaeology and environment of the lower Piedmont and Upper Coastal
Plain regions of North Carolina and surrounding regions were consulted.
Site 31AN60 is a large upland site with intact deposits that could represent recurrent seasonal occupations
or a base camp. Seasonal camps and base camps represent an integral component of Native American
settlement systems. Understanding the distribution and use patterns of such seasonal camps and base
camp sites is necessary for the complete understanding of the range of activities that occurred at these
sites, and can provide for a more comprehensive evaluation of prehistoric settlement systems during the
transition between the Archaic and Woodland periods.
Since previous investigations at 31AN60 revealed that cultural material is contained in the plowzone and
that spatially discrete sub-plowzone features are present at the site, there were two primary goals of the
data recovery excavations. One objective was to recover an adequate sample of artifacts to allow
inferences concerning technological activities and spatial variability of various artifact types across the
site. A second objective was to expose the underlying subsoil in order to delineate intact cultural features
associated with the occupations.
Survey and testing excavations at site 31AN60 have yielded features and artifacts relating to at least the
Late Archaic, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland periods. Consequently, this site could provide data
relevant to a variety of research issues, ranging from narrowly focused questions concerning the material
culture and technology of specific components, to synthetic questions concerning changing settlement and
subsistence patterns. In order to structure this wide variety of research topics, six major research domains
were defined to address the various research questions that were pursued at 31AN60. These include:
• Chronology
• Environmental Reconstruction and Resource Availability
• Material Culture
• Subsistence
• Component Seasonality, Function, and Settlement Plan
• Social Organization and Inter -Regional Relationships
In the following discussion, numerous research questions are presented in sets according to these six
general research domains. Each set of questions begins with a statement formulating the boundaries and
significance of the domain, followed by general questions relating to that topic, and then by more specific
questions. Although these questions are numerous, they are not exhaustive. Other specific questions
were developed as the contents of the site and the various components became more apparent. It was
understood at the time the data recovery plan was developed that it was unlikely that the data would allow
all of these research questions to be addressed equally, but that each would be addressed as far as
possible. The research at 31AN60 has substantially augmented our understanding of the nature of this
17

site, its relationship to the immediate surroundings, and its relationship to sites elsewhere in Anson
County and adjacent regions.
CHRONOLOGY
Establishing a fine-grained chronology for the human occupation of 31AN60 is essential to an adequate
understanding of the culture history of this site, and is a prerequisite to addressing subsequent research
domains and questions. "Fine-grained" here means sub -period (i.e., of lesser duration than Late Archaic,
Early Woodland) time resolution. The development of a chronology begins by determining the time span
of the occupations represented at this site. This is accomplished through a combination of absolute and
relative dating of feature contents and temporally diagnostic artifacts. Using these techniques provides a
fine-grained analysis of environmental and cultural changes during each occupation, through which the
following questions can be addressed.
What is the chronology of the human occupation of 31AN60? To what degree can radiocarbon and
OCR dates, coupled with artifact analyses, provide more refined intervals for the various prehistoric
occupations? Using these techniques, can features and artifacts present be placed in fine-grained
chronological sequence within components?
What are the chronological relationships among the Woodland period ceramic types present at
31AN60? Do the ceramic types present at 31AN60 relate to a single series/tradition, successive
series, or contemporaneous series?
What is the chronological relationship of the projectile points recovered from 31AN60? How do they
compare chronologically with other projectile points of the same type generally assigned to the Late
Archaic through Middle Woodland period in the Piedmont region? Do these projectile points fit
within the established temporal range, or can the range of relevant point types be expanded through a
refinement of absolute chronology?
ENVIRONMENTAL RECONSTRUCTION AND RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
A detailed reconstruction of the environment at 31AN60 throughout the various periods of occupation
will provide essential information concerning inhabitants' relationships to the landscape. This
reconstruction will involve consideration of the local and regional paleoenvironmental data, as well as
human impacts on the immediate site environment. The following research questions were developed
concerning the environmental history of 31AN60.
To what extent have disturbances associated with clear -cutting and subsequent reforestation and pine
replanting (e.g., bedding harrow or shearing and raking practices) affected the site? Can such
disturbances be documented through lateral migration of artifact clusters and features and cross -
mending of artifacts?
What environmental factors attracted groups to this locality? Were these groups exploiting the same
resources through time, or were different aspects of the environment stressed as cultures changed?
What forest and grassland types were present in the immediate vicinity of 31AN60 prior to and
during the various occupations? Is there evidence for change in vegetational communities in relation
18

to documented changes in global climate (e.g., Gunn 1994:16-18) over these periods? What effects
did climatic conditions at the site have on resource availability? Do phytoliths provide evidence of
intentional landscape modification at this site during the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland
period occupations?
What natural resources (clay, stone, etc.) are present in the immediate vicinity of the site? Does the
lithic material in the artifact assemblage appear to have been obtained from locally available sources?
Is there evidence for utilization of the quartz and quartzite cobbles apparently derived from weathered
conglomerates, which are so prominent at other sites within the Anson County landfill tract (P. Webb
1995)? If so, are there associated changes in lithic reduction strategies (e.g., bipolar vs. bifacial
reduction) through time?
MATERIAL CULTURE
A number of general and specific research questions relate to the material culture (ceramics and stone
tools, etc.) associated with each of the components at 31AN60. Due to the interrelationships between
material culture and other aspects of human adaptations, many of these questions also relate to questions
of chronology, subsistence, and site organization. Others are more focused on the biological
environment, but are important in gathering a broad picture of prehistoric Native American lifeways at
this site.
Late Archaic manifestations differ considerably in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions, the most
important difference being the use of fiber -tempered pottery. Since this site is located just west of the
Fall Line, does 31AN60 display characteristics exclusive to the Piedmont region or, since it is located
along a buffer zone, does it share traits with both the Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions?
Are major aspects of Late Archaic material culture identified elsewhere in the region represented at
this site, such as groundstone atlatl weights and full grooved axes, steatite vessels, grinding stones
and other food processing tools?
What are the technofunctional artifact classes represented at the site? Are there
synchronic/diachronic differences between occupational episodes? Is there variety in the activities
represented at this site? Does the site represent long-term occupations or short-term, recurrent
occupations?
Are there typological differences in the Late Archaic projectile points represented at 31AN60? If so,
do these differences concur with observations of Late Archaic Piedmont tradition projectile points
elsewhere in the region (Oliver 1981, 1985); that is, are large stemmed bifaces (Savannah River
Stemmed) replaced by smaller stemmed varieties (Small Savannah River Stemmed and Otarre)?
What information can the site yield about the abrupt termination of the Piedmont tradition of
projectile point manufacture and its subsequent replacement by the intrusive triangular point tradition
(cf. Oliver 1981, 1985)? Is there evidence of continuation of stemmed points into the Early
Woodland period (e.g., Gypsy, Swannoa) or do triangular projectile points make an abrupt
appearance at the end of the Late Archaic period occupation at the site?
Does this site have the potential to yield evidence of early pottery manufacture? Does local use of
soapstone vessels predate the ceramic assemblage at 31AN60?
19

involved with pioneering grain and edible seed plants like goosefoot and knotweed or domesticated
plants?
How do the subsistence practices evident at 31AN60 compare with those from the surrounding region
(e.g., Cantley and Raymer 1990; Gremillion 1987; Holm 1987; Ward and Davis 1993)? Is there an
increased dependence on plant foods, as has been noted elsewhere during the Late Archaic period?
COMPONENT SEASONALITY, FUNCTION, AND SETTLEMENT PLAN
A fifth group of research questions combine data on chronology, material culture, and subsistence to
examine the nature of the occupations represented at 31AN60. In this regard, it is essential to note that
this site represents overlapping occupations of varying types and durations. Therefore, each occupation
has its own set of activities that took place in different human and environmental circumstances. The
delineation of single or multiple components and occupations needs to be established before functional
interpretations of the site can be made. Evidence of the changing use of 31AN60 through prehistory may
provide considerable insight into changing patterns of human adaptation in North Carolina.
What is the seasonality of occupations at 31AN60? Does this site reflect seasonal use of upland
settings by river -based groups, or is a settlement model of upland sites coexisting with riverine
settlements suggested? Is a seasonal pattern of settlement aggregation and dispersal indicated for the
Late Archaic period, as has been observed elsewhere (Cabak et al. 1996; Sassaman 1993a)? Do the
�= occupations change from a seasonal occupation during the Late Archaic period to a year-round
occupation during the Early Woodland period, an upland pattern observed elsewhere in the Southeast
(Cabak et al. 1996)?
M
Are different types of features associated with different spatial areas, artifact types, etc., across this
site? Does spatial patterning within the site provide information regarding the site's structure and
function? Are the Archaic and Woodland deposits at 31AN60 horizontally or vertically distinct?
Is there evidence of Late Archaic and Early Woodland structures at this site, as has. been noted
elsewhere in the Southeast (Anderson 1985; Ledbetter 1991)? What is the form and function of
Archaic and Woodland pit features? Is there variability among structure types and pit features
through time? What is the function of the pit feature identified at N90 E60? Is this feature related to
processing or storing of food resources?
What activities were carried out during the various occupation episodes at 31AN60? Did the nature
of the activities change through time? Do the occupations appear to represent groups organized into
patterns of logistical or residential mobility (Binford 1980)?
Is there high variation in the artifact assemblage at the site? If so, does a high assemblage variability
imply use as a habitation site? If not, does a limited assemblage variation imply a high degree of
residential mobility? What implications does this information have concerning organizational
strategy in the Fall Zone?
21

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND INTER -REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
A final set of research questions relates to broader concerns of social organization and inter -regional
interaction. In most cases, these questions incorporate and use information from more specific research
questions outlined above.
How do patterns of material culture use, subsistence, feature form, and settlement organization at
31AN60 compare to other occupations in the area? Does the artifact assemblage from these sites
signify task differentiation? What do these comparisons say about the nature of Late Archaic through
Middle Woodland occupations in the Brown Creek and Pinch Gut drainages of the Pee Dee valley?
How do the upslope components at 31AN60 compare to streamside components found elsewhere in
the surrounding area? Do any differences reflect locations of habitations versus food -processing and
other specialized activity locations?
Do the data from 31AN60 clarify our understanding of local and regional settlement patterns in the
region? How well do the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland period occupations of this site
accord with the extant settlement models for the region?
Are data available to support Sassaman's (1993b) model for the rise and fall of distinct Late Archaic
groups with respect to the origins and spread of fiber -tempered pottery in the lower Piedmont through
trade and exchange of soapstone slabs into the Coastal Plain?
a
22
W

V. RESEARCH METHODS
LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH
As part of the background research, TRC Garrow accumulated comparative data on the paleoenvironment
and archaeology of Piedmont and Coastal Plain transition zones. This was accomplished through
literature review as well as consultations with other researchers in the region. Published and unpublished
literature was examined in order to provide comparative information that will allow for a more accurate
and complete interpretation of the site.
This background research utilized information available in regional and state repositories, such as the
OSA library, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill library, and TRC Garrow's reference library.
Information concerning the archaeological background of the Anson County area, and the region in
general, was obtained from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to reports and studies by
Anderson (1992), Cabak et al. (1996), Claggett and Cable (1982), Coe (1964), Cooper (1976a, 1976b),
Garrow and Watson (1979), Guan (1992), Gunn and Wilson (1992), Hall and Littleton (1979), Hargrove
(1989a), Mouer (1990, 1991), Oliver (1981, 1985, 1992), Phelps (1983), Rogers (1989), Sassaman
(1993a), Sassaman and Anderson (1994), Ward (1977, 1983), P. Webb (1995), and R. Webb (1995).
FIELD METHODOLOGY
The field methods used at 31AN60 were specifically designed to gather data relevant to the various
research domains outlined in the research design. Hand -excavation of the site was undertaken to gather
data on artifact and feature distributions and was a major part of the data recovery investigations. The
Phase III data recovery excavations at site 31AN60 were carried out in two stages: mapping and
excavation of test units. Details concerning the extent and methods of both of these are provided below.
Site Preparation
Data recovery investigations at 31AN60 commenced with re-establishment of the site grid and location of
the site datums that were used during the previous excavations. Additional nails or pinflags were placed
at 5-m intervals within a 10-m grid across the site when necessary. After the grid was established,
previous excavation units and shovel test pits were relocated.
After completion of this initial survey work, a map was constructed showing the location of the site grid
in relation to nearby cultural and natural features, such as roads, fencelines, and the dam, pond, and
' stream. A topographic map was then made of the ground surface prior to excavation. This base map was
used to record all cultural and natural features in three-dimensional space. The map was updated daily to
show the dimensions of all excavation units and major cultural and natural features at a uniform scale.
More detailed maps of individual feature and excavation units were then keyed into this map and the site
grid as excavation progressed.
23

Excavation of Test Units
Subsequent to establishment of a grid, the data recovery investigations proceeded with hand -excavation of
a series of individual and contiguous 1-x-1-m test units (TUs), to retrieve sufficient information for
interpretation of the site's chronology, function and duration. The test units were placed in Loci A and B
and were concentrated in the area where features were previously encountered and where the Phase II
testing investigations identified high and moderate artifact density areas. In order to determine if features
were located outside of artifact concentrations, a small sample of block excavations was also excavated in
low -density areas. In general, the test units were evenly distributed within Loci A and B so that, when
combined with the STPs and TU excavations during the Phase I and II investigations, both loci were
adequately covered.
The test unit excavations in each locus began with individual test units, which were later expanded into
larger block excavations as necessary, depending on the density of cultural material and the presence of
features. In general, the placement of test units was constrained by pine trees and undergrowth that
prevented the excavation of large contiguous test units.
The scope of work suggested a goal of 28-40 TU in the northern portion (Locus A) of the site, which
would represent 0.8-1.1 % of the locus area when combined with previous excavations conducted in this
area. Fifty-eight test units were placed across Locus A to gather data on the intact deposits associated
with high, moderate, and low artifact concentrations and feature deposits in this area. When combined
with the Phase II excavations (10.75 square meters), this sample size represents 1.5% of the total surface
area excavated in Locus A and provides a representative sample of the artifacts and features present in
this part of the site. Test unit excavations in Locus A were fairly evenly distributed across the site to
delineate possible activity areas associated with the multiple occupations; however, particular emphasis
was placed on intensive excavations in the center of the site, where testing investigations identified two
areas of high artifact density.
Most of the test units were placed in the vicinity of TUs 4 and 5 and Shovel Tests N90 El 10, N80 E90,
and N100 E100, while some of the test units were placed around Shovel Test N90 E70 to completely
expose Feature 2 and gather additional data on other possible associated features. The remainder of the
test units were intuitively placed and excavated in the intermediate area of the site to sample adequately
the remainder of Locus A, particularly the transition between low —moderate artifact density and
moderate —high artifact density areas.
In addition to excavations in Locus A, as outlined in the scope of work, four to eight TUs were to be
excavated in the southern part of the site (Locus B), representing 0.5-0.7% of this portion of the site area.
The previous Phase II investigations determined that Locus B is characterized by a relatively low artifact
density clustered in the western portion of the locus, particularly between NO-20 E60-80. Because of the
_ considerably lower artifact density in this portion of the site, four test units were excavated in Locus B to
thoroughly investigate the intact deposits there. Since this locus area lacked definitive areas of artifact
concentration, the TUs were uniformly spaced across this portion of the site. Although this sample size
can be considered small (0.5% of the locus area when combined with Phase II excavation), the overall
low density of artifacts and absence of any high concentration of artifacts (including two culturally sterile
test units) precluded the need for the excavation of a larger number of test units.
Excavation Methods
Each test unit was excavated by arbitrary 5-cm levels within intact natural strata. Since previous
excavations determined that the artifactual deposits at 31AN60 were primarily confined to the disturbed
24

plowzone horizon, this stratum was excavated as one level. Although testing investigations at the site
determined that the subsoil did not yield intact artifact .deposits, the presence of cultural features
extending into the B horizon suggested that intact artifact deposits might exist in the subsoil; thus,
excavation continued to 5 cm below the lowest artifact -bearing level.
All soil removed from the test units were screened through 1/4-inch wire mesh for uniform artifact
recovery. Due to the shallow cultural deposits and lack of complicated stratigraphy displayed in the
residual soils at the site, stratigraphic profiles were limited to two adjoining walls of each block
excavation or isolated test units. Generally the south and west walls were profiled, for consistency and
ease in constructing a cross-section of the representative soil.horizons across the site. The stratigraphic
profiles recorded the vertical extent of major soil horizons, including their texture and predominant
Munsell (1992) color, and were photographed in black and white print and color slide formats. In order to
discern anthropogenic indicators possibly associated with major artifact concentrations, sediment samples
for geochemical analysis were taken along two transects across the site and from one control column
outside of the site boundaries. Research has indicated that protein indicators, as well as chemicals
associated with bone decomposition, may be associated with certain types of human activity (Gunn 1998;
Pullins 1996; Pullins and Blanton 1994; Stanyard 1997).
A unit level form was completed for every level of each stratum excavated in each test unit, and a test unit
summary form was completed after completion of each test unit. These forms included a plan map
showing all features and other soil anomalies; explanation of any changes in the basic excavation
strategy; soil descriptions (including texture and Munsell color identifications); a listing of photographs
taken; and a list of all artifact bags, flotation samples, and other samples removed from the test unit. The
base of each level within each stratum was scraped and examined for the presence of features, both
cultural and natural. If no features were present, the excavation of the next level proceeded. Any features
encountered were excavated using procedures described below. Profile drawings were made as necessary
to facilitate interpretation.
All artifact and flotation samples were placed into bags labeled with the site number, provenience, date
and method of collection, initials of collector, and bag inventory number. All bags were numbered
sequentially and recorded on field inventories that were checked prior to processing in the lab.
Detailed notes were made on the data recovery excavation methodology and relative environmental
factors, such as soil types and ground disturbance. Representative photographs of the site were taken in
black and white print and color slide formats to document the general topography and vegetation.
Mechanical Stripping
According to the data recovery plan, following the completion of the test unit excavations, a portion of
the plowzone layer in Loci A and B was to be removed systematically in eight to 10 2-m-wide cross-
transects across the site by a backhoe with either a toothless bucket or a flat -edged metal blade attached to
the bucket. The primary purpose of the mechanical removal of the Ap horizon was to assess the integrity
of the subsoil deposits and to investigate the distribution of cultural features over both portions of the site.
Upon completion of the topsoil removal, the interface in each backhoe strip trench was to be cleaned by
u shovel, hoe, and/or trowel to expose any soil anomalies that may represent cultural features.
It was anticipated that the removal of the plowzone layer would allow for large areas of the intact subsoil
to be exposed and examined for cultural features in both Loci A and B. Unfortunately, consultation with
-- a local backhoe operator determined that, because of the presence of large. trees, heavy machinery was
unable to access Locus A and mechanical stripping of this portion of the site would not be feasible.
25

Although Locus B could be accessed with a backhoe, the overall low density of artifacts recovered from
this area suggested that there was an extremely low probability of encountering cultural features.
Since tree obstructions did not allow for the backhoeoperations to be as effective as intended, the
mechanical removal of the topsoil was supplemented with additional test units and hand -excavated
trenches within Locus A above the goal of 28-40 originally projected. This method was pursued in order
to adequately expose as much of the underlying subsoil horizon as possible across the site within the time
allowed in the scope of work.
Feature Recordation and Excavation
All potential cultural features were flagged when first exposed and given a unique number for subsequent
tracking purposes, continuing the feature number sequence assigned during the previous Phase II testing
investigations. When features were identified, they were carefully defined by trowelling, mapped in plan
view, and their locations plotted on the site map. Elevations for the top of each feature were taken from
the center of each feature. A detailed plan map was drawn and all features were documented with color
slide and black and white print photographs. All features were cross -sectioned, and one half was
excavated and mapped in profile. The remainder of the fill was then removed, and the completely
excavated feature was photographed, drawn, and vertical elevation was recorded. If a feature was
determined to be noncultural in origin (e.g., a rodent burrow or tree root), excavation was terminated.
A maximum 10-liter flotation sample from each cultural feature or discrete level within a feature was
extracted and subjected to flotation analysis in the attempt to recover minute floral and faunal materials.
If fewer than 10 liters of feature fill were recovered from a cultural feature or natural stratum, the entire
feature or stratum was collected and subjected to flotation analysis. The volume of each flotation sample
was determined prior to processing so that relative frequencies of macrobotanical remains recovered from
feature contexts could be standardized for comparison among features and for discerning synchronic
and/or diachronic trends. Portions of features not saved for flotation processing were screened through
1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth.
Information generated from feature excavation was recorded on standardized feature forms. Standard soil
descriptions were completed for each fill zone, including a Munsell (1992) color identification and soil
texture. Notes were taken concerning feature morphology, dimensions, contents, stratigraphic
relationships, and likely function. The plan and profile maps for each feature were appended to the
feature form. Radiocarbon samples were also be taken as appropriate from each feature.
Sediment samples (250 g) for geochemical analysis and pH level were taken from each feature matrix and
from outside the feature boundaries for comparison with feature data. Research has demonstrated the
utility of geochemical analysis in feature interpretation (Millis et al. 1995). In some instances, hearths do
not contain seeds or other food remains, especially if used repeatedly over time. General cleaning
activities by site inhabitants may have moved macroremains from primary to secondary contexts (i.e.,
from around the hearth to outside the feature). Moreover, elevated or reduced levels of phosphate and pH
can help distinguish if a hearth was used for food processing or simple heating fires. Standard charcoal
and sediment samples (250 g) were also taken from feature fill contexts for radiocarbon, phytolith, and
OCR analyses.
26

Off -Site Environmental Studies .
In conjunction with the fieldwork, limited off -site research was conducted to gather data on
paleoenvironmental conditions. A 5-cm soil column was collected of each analogous stratigraphic unit on
a comparable landform outside of the site boundaries to obtain a background control sample for the
various sediment analyses.
LABORATORY METHODOLOGY
All cultural materials recovered during the field investigations were processed and prepared for curation
in TRC Garrow's. laboratory in Chapel Hill. All appropriate standards developed for federally recognized
and approved curation repositories were followed. The specific .procedures that were used to complete
the laboratory processing and artifact analysis follow.
The laboratory processing included the preparation of a detailed inventory of all recovered data to ensure
that all of the materials were present and organized, and to facilitate subsequent analyses. Artifacts were
cleaned, using techniques appropriate to the nature and condition of the materials. Any artifacts that
require specialized handling, treatment, and conservation (e.g., perishable materials such as charcoal,
bone, or seeds) were separated from other artifacts and set aside for further specialized analyses.
After processing, all artifacts were classified and catalogued using standardized procedures, which are
outlined below. The laboratory analyses emphasized description of the overall artifact assemblage, with
L. the artifact catalogues organized so that the data base can be manipulated by future researchers. The goal
of the analysis was not only to provide the artifactual data needed to address the current research design,
but also to provide an archaeological archive useful to future researchers.
Analysis of Prehistoric Lithic Material
Chipped stone artifacts constituted nearly all of the prehistoric artifacts recovered, and were initially
sorted into unmodified debitage (manufacturing waste), formal tool, and expedient tool (retouched and/or
utilized flakes) categories. The data resulting from these analyses were used to address questions
concerning the chipped stone assemblage, including the intra-site distribution of chipped stone artifact
classes, chronological associations of tool forms, patterns of raw material preference, technological
production and use through time, group size and mobility, and delineation of spatial clustering or
specialized activity areas within the site. Each category was analyzed using the following criteria and
procedures.
-- The debitage analysis followed categories used during the site assessment phase of 31AN60 (Guan 1992),
as well as other nearby sites on the landfill tract (Gunn and Wilson 1992; P. Webb 1995). Debitage
categories include unspecialized flake, thinning flake, bipolar flake, flake fragment, and shatter/chunk
fragment. Information on raw material type, frequency, and weight to the nearest tenth of a gram (g) was
also recorded.
xs'
Unspecialized Flake. Flakes of this type are relatively thick and often very curved in longitudinal cross
section. Platforms are often large but simple and exhibit no lip on the ventral surface. Bulbs of
percussion are usually pronounced on the proximal ends of the dorsal faces of these specimens. In most
instances, these flakes are produced during early stages of core reduction through hard hammer
percussion.
6",

Biface Thinning Flake. This category includes relatively thin flakes that are flat to slightly curved in
longitudinal cross section. Specimen margins often are feathered, with secondary flake scars present on
the dorsal face. The platform areas usually are faceted and exhibit sharp lips and diffused bulbs of
percussion on the ventral surfaces. This type of debitage most often occurs during later stages of biface
manufacture and rejuvenation. The platforms and diffuse nature of associated bulbs of many of these
specimens are often associated with soft hammer percussion detachment or pressure flaking.
Bipolar Flake. This artifact type consists of blocky, linear flakes (often with cortex present) and exhibit
evidence of batter, crushing, and/or flakes removed on the ends opposite the striking platforms. These
artifacts have opposing platforms that are battered, crushed, and/or concave and are usually produced
during hard hammer percussion on an anvil stone. Bulbs of percussion are generally not present on either
end of bipolar flakes, because bipolar reduction causes the cone of force to shatter, sever, or collapse.
Instead, bipolar flakes are characterized by a Hertzian cone that appears as a flat surface, often with
visible compression rings. Flake scars can be parallel and linear and frequently do not emanate from the
striking platform, unlike other non -bipolar flakes (Ebright 1985, 1992).
Blade Flake. Flakes of this type are linear with subparallel sides and ridges roughly parallel to the flake
sides. Bipolar flakes generally have a length to width ratio of 2:1. These flakes are also relatively thick
and terminations are often hinged or stepped.
Flake Fragment. This category includes relatively nondiagnostic medial and distal portions of flakes.
Any fragment of a flake lacking a proximal platform area is included in this category.
a.. Shatter/Debris. This category includes angular, blocky debitage that exhibits no evidence of platforms or
bulbs of percussion. These flakes cannot be oriented in relation to their proximal or distal ends. This
type of debitage can occur during any stage of core reduction, but is most prevalent in the early stages.
In order to discern changes in lithic reduction techniques and stages, the specimens placed into the above
categories (except shatter) were also identified as primary, secondary, or tertiary (interior) debitage based
on the amount of cortex present on their dorsal face. Primary debitage is defined as exhibiting more than
90% cortex, secondary debitage as exhibiting approximately 5-90% cortex, and tertiary debitage as
exhibiting 0-5% cortex. Aside from stages of reduction, a size grading classification was performed to
determine reduction characteristics. All flakes were sorted into six classes based on the following sizes:
<1 cm, 1-2 cm, 2-3 cm, 3-4 cm, 4-5 cm, and >5 cm.
The second major lithic group is functional artifacts and is comprised of formal and expedient tools.
Chipped stone tools were sorted into primarily functional categories, including hafted bifaces, other
bifaces, retouched flake tools, and other categories as needed. All formal chipped stone tools were
described according to morphology, technology, function, and raw material type. Metric attributes of
these tools, including length, width, and thickness, were measured in millimeters (mm), to the nearest
tenth; weight was also recorded to the nearest 0.1 gram. The categories in this group are defined below.
Biface/Biface Fragment. This category includes complete specimens, or fragments thereof, of bifacially
worked artifacts that do not exhibit hafting elements. These artifacts were further classified as Stage I
(initial shaping and edging), Stage II (primarily thinned), or Stage III (secondarily thinned), following a
modified version of Callahan's (1979) biface reduction technique. Biface fragments were also classified
according to breakage patterns (e.g., end shock, impact fracture, haft snap).
Stage I, equivalent to Callahan's (1979) Stage 2 biface reduction sequence, is the stage in which the flake,
cobble, chunk, etc., is bifacially worked around the circumference to create or thicken an edge. During
this stage of reduction, there is a strong emphasis on a linear edge and little or no emphasis on surface and
28

outline. This artifact has a generally thick lenticular to irregular cross section, an irregular outline, and a
width -to -thickness ratio between 2:1 and 3:1, with optimum edge angles between 55' and 75°. Flake
scars generally cover less than half of the width and are widely and variably spaced, with a high degree of
variability in flake and scar morphology (Callahan 1979:36, 88-89). Although primary and secondary
thinning generally follow in the reduction sequence, Stage I bifaces have been shown experimentally to
be useful for digging, chopping, scraping, and cutting (Callahan 1979:89).
Stage II comprises primary thinning of a biface and is equivalent to Callahan's (1979) Stage 3
classification. Bifaces in this stage have a lenticular cross section with a width -to -thickness ratio of
between 3:1 and 4:1 and optimum edge angles of 40° to 60° (Callahan 1979:114-115). These artifacts
have a semi -regular outline and flakes are removed to or slightly beyond the biface center line,
"contacting or slightly undercutting similar flake scars taken from the opposite margin" (Callahan
1979:37). Flake scars are closely spaced with a moderate degree of variability in flake and scar
morphology. Emphasis is on surface reduction, such as eliminating major bumps, ridges, and hinge or
step fractures, and to a lesser degree on edge and outline (Callahan 1979:30-31). Aside from preparing
the biface for later Stage III reduction, experiments have indicated that a Stage II biface is useful and
efficient in a number of activities, including digging, chopping, and shcing/cutting material ranging from
meat, hides, vegetal foods, or bark. This type of biface has also been shown to be especially efficient in
cutting 2-4-inch-diameter saplings, particularly when inserted into a haft and used as an axe (Callahan
1979:115).
Stage III includes secondary thinning and is equivalent to Callahan's (1979) Stage 4 sequence. During
this reduction stage the biface approaches a width -to -thickness ratio between 4:1 and 5:1, with optimum
edge angles between 25' and 45°. Bifaces at this stage have a flattened cross section and a regular outline
(Callahan 1979:151-153). Flake scars vary from closely to regularly spaced and there is a low degree of
variability in flake and scar morphology. Flake scars tend to travel beyond the center line and undercut
previous flake scars from the opposite. margin. In general, during this stage of reduction there is a
primary emphasis on maintaining flat surfaces without significant bumps, hinges, step fractures, or
median convexity, and a moderate emphasis on edge and outline (Callahan 1979:30-31, 37). The sides of
the biface are generally parallel or sub -parallel and edge preparation for hafting may also occur during
this stage (Callahan 1979:116). In general, because of the lower cutting edge angles and straighter linear
edges, this stage of biface is more efficient for a variety of sawing, cutting, and scraping activities than
earlier stage bifaces but not as efficient for digging and chopping (Callahan 1979:153).
Core/Core Fragment. This artifact type represents parent raw material that exhibits one or more flake
scars and/or a platform. This artifact type was intended primarily for the production of flake tools and
• - includes amorphous/multifacial, bipolar, and shaped types. Amorphous/multifacial cores exhibit a
random pattern of flake removal with no discernible orientation of previous flake scars. Bipolar cores can
display linear flake scars and generally exhibit a crushed or collapsed striking platform at one or both
_._ ends where the cone of force has been sheared. Platforms may be oriented in different directions;
however, usually the points of impact and anvil contact are opposite each other. This technique is
generally used for splitting and reducing cobbles. Shaped cores exhibit signs of intentional unidirectional
or bi-directional reduction. Core fragment is a fragment of a core that exhibits a platform and associated
flake scars.
Hammerstone. This type of artifact is a cobble or large chunk of stone that displays heavy battering on
one or more faces or margins.
Projectile Point/Projectile Point Fragment. This category includes finished bifaces or unifaces exhibiting
modification of the basal element to facilitate hafting and symmetrical, or occasionally asymmetrical,
edges converging to a point, if they are considered complete. These artifacts can potentially provide
tM
0-14A,
f"

significant chronological data, due to the demonstrated association of particular artifact styles with
particular temporal periods. Extant typologies in use in the Southeast and Middle Atlantic were employed
for the analysis of these artifact classes to estimate temporal placement and function, and to identify
relationships with other artifact traditions, wherever possible. The artifact typologies were consistent
with established regional nomenclature and included Coe (1964), Justice (1987), Oliver (1981, 1985), and
other regional schemes as appropriate.
Retouched Flake. This artifact type consists of flakes displaying secondary modification, usually
manifested as intentional edge retouching. Modification must consist of at least three contiguous flake
scars measuring 5 min or more along an edge and at least 2 mm in width. Retouched flake scars should
exhibit a low variability in size, and retouching may occur along the end, side, or a combination of both,
of flakes. This artifact category is preferred over the utilized flake category, because use -wear is difficult
to detect macroscopically and generally varies by material type. Moreover, utilized flakes can often be
mistaken for unpatterned, incidental damage resulting from shovel, trowel, plow, trampling, or bag -wear
damage.
Scraper. This category includes unifacially, or rarely bifacially, retouched flakes or blades that display
steep and/or beveled edges on one or more lateral margins. In general the face opposite the retouching is
flat. This artifact class encompasses several types, including end, side, concave/notched, denticulated,
spurred, and thumbnail. End scrapers display retouching on the distal ends. Side scrapers exhibit edge
modification along one or both lateral margins. A concave/notched scraper is a flake or blade that
displays one or a series of non-contiguous deep semicircular notches along one edge. Retouching or use
wear is evident along the margins of the notching. This artifact is also known as a spokeshave. A
denticulated scraper is a flake or blade that has been unifacially or bifacially retouched to produce a
contiguous and regularly spaced series of lateral projections or serrations. This artifact type is
distinguished from concave/notched scrapers by the size and spacing of indentations. A spurred scraper is
a tool that displays steep unifacial retouching in combination with a sharp projection at one corner. A
thumbnail scraper is defined as a small, thick, unifacially worked flake that exhibits steep retouching
along the distal ends.
` Other Rock. Site 31AN60 produced a large quantity of fire -cracked rock and apparently unmodified rock.
All rocks recovered during the investigations were returned to the laboratory and classified as either fire -
cracked rock or apparently unmodified rock. Fire -cracked rock represents raw material that has shattered
due to thermal shock, either resulting directly from a fire or being immersed while hot in a cooler
medium, such as water. Alteration in color and/or luster, angular and blocky fractures, and pot -lidded
surfaces are diagnostic of fire -cracked rock. Fire -cracked rock was described according to raw material
type, frequency, and weight. Apparently unmodified rock, when collected in the field, was discarded in
the laboratory.
k3
Analysis of Bifacial Tool Breakage Patterns
A variety of fracture or breakage patterns may be evident on biface and projectile point fragments.
Identification of these fracture types in the lithic assemblage can provide information on whether
breakage originates from the point of force (direct fracture) or whether the applied force was
unintentional (indirect fracture) (Johnson 1981). Five types of direct fractures were delineated.
Reverse fracture (Johnson 1981:44), also called overshoot or outrepasse (Crabtree 1982:80), occurs when
a bifacial thinning flake crosses the body of the biface and removes the bifacial edge opposite the point of
impact and on the reverse face. This type of break is associated with early- or late -stage biface
C

production and is associated with billet flaking, occasionally with a hammerstone, and an incorrect
striking angle (Callahan 1979:85, 112).
Perverse fracture (Crabtree 1982:82) is a spiral or twisting break that can occur as an oblique fracture
across the face and results from usage or biface manufacture.
Impact (Ahler 1971:52) or multiple step fractures (Dockall 1997:327) are characterized by a series of step
fractures or flake scars at the distal end of the biface, often on one surface. This breakage pattern
generally results in the destruction or snapping of a small portion of the tip and occurs as a result of
usage.
Longitudinal fractures occur lengthwise along the biface. Callahan (1979:110) indicates that this type of
fracture is rare during biface production, and Ahler (1971:85-86) has noted that longitudinal flake scars
result from the use of a biface as a projectile.
Hinge fractures, including step fractures (Johnson 1981:44), occur on the faces of artifacts and result in
unsuccessful elimination of medial ridges and convexities. These fractures have a rounded (hinge) or flat
(step) termination and are more common with hammerstone flaking than with billet flaking (Callahan
1979:108). This type of fracture does not necessarily lead to rejection of the biface and may occur in
association with a different breakage pattern that did eventually lead to rejection of the artifact.
Aside from direct fractures, six types of indirect fractures are defined.
Lateral snap (Purdy 1974:134), end shock (Crabtree 1982:60), or transverse fractures (Ahler 1971:58,
79) are fractures that occur in a relatively straight line across the biface and form a subtle "S" curve in
profile. This type of fracture may occur during biface manufacture or during use for purposes other than
as a projectile (Ahler 1971:58,79).
Haft snaps are a type of transverse fracture that occurs across the proximal portion of a hafted biface
(Johnson 1981:52). This type of break is generally caused by use.
Material flaw or incipient fractures (Johnson 1981:48) occur along cracks or fault lines due to natural
flaws or impurities in the raw material. These fractures are generally manifested by a relatively flat
fracture face and may display discoloration as a result of mineral percolation.
Crenated fractures occur during thermal treatment and are manifested by one or more irregular fractures
that result in a jagged appearance (Johnson 1981:49; Purdy 1975:173).
Potlid fractures also occur during thermal treatment and result in shallow, conical depressions or
concoidal ripples on one or both faces (Johnson 1981:49).
Corner/barb breaks occur, appropriately enough, at the corner of the shoulder.
Recent breaks are post -depositional modification, such as trowel, shovel, or plow damage, and can
generally be discerned by a fresh appearance or color difference in patination that has occurred since the
manufacture of the biface.
In addition to the above breakage patterns, the following attributes were recorded for bifaces and
projectile points: haft type, base form, shoulder form, blade shape, blade edge, blade cross section, biface
condition, condition of haft element, presence or absence of cortex, thermal alteration, raw material color
and type, evidence of resharpening or reworking, technological function, cultural -historical type, and
31

biface reduction stage. Metric attributes were recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm for length, width, thickness,
basal concavity, haft length, haft width, haft thickness, shoulder width, medial blade width, blade length,
and weight to the nearest 0.1 gram.
Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramic Material
Due to the limited number of ceramic artifacts recovered from the site, all sherds were subjected to
detailed analyses that combined typological studies and attribute analysis. The goal of the analysis was to
objectively discern the manufacture of ceramic vessels by discrete sociopolitical entities who occupied
the area during the Woodland period. Additionally, these analyses will allow for refinement of
chronology of the site occupation.
Initially, each sherd was characterized according to surface treatment and decoration, temper, and location
of the extant fragment(s) in the original vessel (i.e., rim, neck, body, etc.). When possible, these
observations were used to assign artifacts to certain regionally acknowledged types (e.g., Yadkin Fabric
Marked); in other cases, sherds may have been assigned to more descriptive categories (e.g., Unidentified
Complicated Stamped).
Following that analysis, additional analyses were carried out on selected parts of the ceramic assemblage
to better characterize ceramic technology, vessel forms, and vessel use. As part of that analysis, an
attempt was made to cross -mend diagnostic sherds recovered from the site. Vessel counts were derived
from decorated sherd lots, undecorated sherd lots containing undecorated rim sherds, and other
recognizable vessel fragments, and an attempt was made to determine the vessel composition of the
various assemblages present at the. site. Additional observations were made of decorative technique and
motifs, vessel form, and such variables as thickness, paste color, porosity, presence of internal and
external abrasions, cordage twist, etc. The goal of the analysis was a thorough description of the ceramic
assemblage associated with the Woodland component(s) present at 31AN60, including a reconstruction of
the ways in which various vessel forms were produced and used.
Analysis of Historic Material
Since Site 31AN60 does not contain a substantial historic component, laboratory analysis of historic
material focused on general classification of artifacts and assigning functional ascriptions. Most of the
historic materials were not specifically temporally diagnostic; however, some displayed characteristics
that allowed general temporal assignation.
Specialized Analyses
Previous investigations suggested that 31AN60 could provide a variety of specialized data relating to each
of the research domains.' The types of specialized analyses that were conducted to recover these types of
information included archaeobotanical, phytolith, geochemical, and OCR and radiocarbon dating. Each
of these specialized forms of analysis is discussed and described in some detail below.
Flotation Processing. Flotation samples were processed at the TRC Garrow laboratory in Atlanta, using a
Flote-Tech system built by Dausman Technical Services. This unit consists of a self-contained 100-
gallon, aluminum floatation tank powered by an electric pump, and uses both water and air to remove soil
and separate artifacts into light and heavy fractions utilizing a 1-mm screen in the main flotation box.
32

After drying, light fraction samples were submitted to Ms. Nancy Asch-Sidell of Oakland, Maine for
analysis and identification. The samples were sieved through 2-mm, 1-mm, and 0.5-mm screens;
contaminants were removed before weighing charcoal with an electronic balance accurate to 0.0001 g.
Charcoal larger than 2 mm was sorted and quantified by counting rather than by weighing categories;
charcoal 0.5-2 mm was scanned for presence/absence of rare categories; and all seeds were removed.
Charcoal weight and counts of some categories were estimated in the 0.5-1-mm fraction by using a riffle
sampler to produce a subsample for quantitative analysis. Charcoal smaller than 0.5 mm was not
systematically examined, because it rarely yields identifiable remains. Uncarbonized plant remains were
assumed to be more recent inclusions and were not tabulated.
From counts of the charcoal larger than 2 mm, the percentage occurrence of charcoal types by weight can
be approximated. Extensive testing at the Center for American Archeology for sites in Illinois has shown
that this method gives results closely comparable to complete sorting and weighing of samples (Appendix
2). Quantification by enumeration of large -fraction (>2 mm) contents has two significant advantages over
weighing and complete sorting: it is much faster, and identifications are more reliable because the larger
fragments more often have diagnostic characteristics.
For wood charcoal, the objective was to identify 20 fragments larger than 2 mm per sample. The
transverse section of the wood was examined at 30X magnification after manually breaking the charcoal
to obtain a clean section. Charcoal, cultigens, nuts, seeds, and other food remains were identified to the
most specific taxon possible to reconstruct the exploitation patterns of botanical resources by the
inhabitants of the site.
The heavy fractions from the flotation samples were separated into two fractions, one larger than 1/4 inch
and one smaller than 1/4 inch, using graduated geological sieves. The larger fraction was analyzed
following standard procedures. The smaller fraction was scanned for small diagnostic artifacts and faunal
elements, and then discarded.
Analysis of the macro- and microbotanical remains will assist in determining those plant species utilized
by the site's inhabitants and will aid in the reconstruction of the prehistoric environment, as well as allow
for interpretation of dietary patterns and seasonality.
Radiocarbon Dating. Radiocarbon samples were drawn from carbonized remains recovered from discrete
feature contexts after the archaeobotanical analyses had been completed. All dates were processed by
Beta Analytic, Inc. of Miami, Florida. Radiocarbon dates were subsequently calibrated to calendar years
using the conventional 14C age, which was obtained after applying the t3C/12C correction to the measured
age, utilizing methods outlined by Stuiver et al. (1993), Talma et al. (1993), and Vogel et al. (1993).
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR) Dating. Selected sediment samples from feature contexts were also
analyzed using the OCR dating technique developed by Douglas Frink (1992, 1994). Such analyses were
carried out by Mr. Frink of the Archaeological Consulting Team of Essex Junction, Vermont.
Phytolith Analysis. Recent studies (e.g., R. Webb 1995) have demonstrated the utility of phytolith
$ ` analysis in providing paleoenvironmental data in the southeastern Piedmont. Phytolith analyses were
used on a limited basis in the present project to help reconstruct the local environment during the
utilization of 31AN60. Phytolith samples were processed and analyzed by Dr. Irwin Rovner of Binary
Analytical Consultants, Inc., of Raleigh, North Carolina.
r Geochemical Analysis. Geochemical testing includes analysis of pH levels and multi -element analysis
k using the G32m nitric—aqua—regia leach package of soil extracted from cultural features and soil columns.
r.� .
33
I.-

These analyses helped to identify and interpret cultural horizons and activity areas. Geochemical
analyses were processed by Chemex Labs, Inc. of Sparks, Nevada.
Sediment Analysis. Aside from geochemical testing, several types of analyses were conducted of
sediments obtained from the site. In particular, particle size and total carbon content were determined for
each soil sample. Phosphorous has a tendency to bind with carbon, whereas sediments with high clay or
organic content will yield high metal concentrations because they provide larger surface areas to which
metals can become attached. As a result, the sediment analyses were necessary to standardize the
geochemical test results to allow for comparison across the site and to help define anthropogenic features
associated with artifact concentrations and activity areas.
Curation of Project Materials
All artifacts, written records, photographs, and other project materials will be curated temporarily at the
TRC Garrow facilities in Atlanta and Chapel Hill. Following completion of the report, all artifacts and
records will be curated at an institution meeting applicable federal and state standards. It is expected that
the permanent repository will be the Lane Street Curation Facility in Raleigh, which is currently under
construction and is scheduled to open in early 1999.
34
d-

VI. STRATIGRAPHY AND CULTURAL FEATURES
SITE BOUNDARY AND EXTENT
Site 31AN60 covers an area of approximately 60 x 80 in (4800 m2) in Locus A at the north side of the site
and 60 x 95 in (5700 mZ) in Loci B and C on the south side of the site. The site is bounded partially by
natural barriers, as well ,as absence of cultural material as determined through subsurface investigations
conducted by Guan (1992). The artifact distribution within the site essentially is confined to the relatively
flat portions of a terrace (Locus A), but also continues across a spring channel and along a terrace toe
slope (Loci B and Q. Locus A is confined to the north by a moderately steep terrace slope, to the south
by a spring channel, and to the west and east by lack of cultural artifacts and a gradual terrace slope
(Figure 6). Locus B is bounded to the north by a spring channel, and to the south, east, and west by
culturally sterile shovel tests. The southern, eastern and western boundary of Locus C was also
determined by absence of artifacts, whereas the northern boundary is confined by a spring channel.
NATURE AND INTEGRITY OF DEPOSITS
a Land encompassed with site 31AN60 was primarily used for pasture until approximately 1969, after
which it became a planted pine plantation. At some point during the nineteenth or twentieth century,
however, there is evidence that this area was used for cultivation. The plowzone is relatively shallow and
limited to the uppermost soil deposits, extending to an average depth of 15 cm below surface. In general,
plow scars encountered during the data recovery excavations were oriented in a northwest —southeast
direction across the site. The relative shallowness of the upper horizon indicates that it has been subjected
to severe erosion. Erosion was apparently negligible in the Piedmont during the prehistoric period.
Beginning with European settlement in the 1700s, erosion has accelerated drastically as a result of large-
scale clear -cutting and intensive agriculture (Trimble 1974).
t . Despite the vertical mixing of artifacts in the plowzone horizon, the horizontal artifact distributions
revealed by Phase III excavations suggest that relatively intact artifact clusters are preserved. The data
indicate the existence of recognizable activity loci: two major and several minor artifact concentrations
evidenced in the excavation test units. Data from artifact distribution patterns suggest that these apparent
concentrations likely represent spatially discrete occupations and/or separate activity areas resulting from
the same occupation.
Aside from cultivation, the only other major disturbance to the site area is associated with the
reforestation of the area through establishment of a pine plantation (see Figure 3). The rows of planted
pine are oriented in a northeast —southwest direction across the site with approximately 3 in (10 feet)
between rows and approximately 1.5 in (5 feet) between individual trees along each row. Small,
discontinuous furrows were observed and encountered in the excavation units along several rows of
planted pines. This disturbance was generally manifested as a small mound of topsoil overlying a
�-- subsequent mound of subsoil. Other than the usual mixing associated with the plowzone, there was no
mixing of plowzone and subsurface soils along the furrows. Other disturbances observed during
p excavation were minor and included bioturbation from burrowing rodents and insects as well as from tree
L_ roots. Small depressions associated with uprooted tree falls were also encountered sporadically across the
site.
(
35

I
Grid 0 Meters 30
North Contour Interval 50 Centimeters
Magnetic
North
o Phase II shovel test
® Phase II test unit
13 Phase III test unit
N120 r T T T T T T T T
LyT'���.,�ye saw'LOCOUS
' 31.� A , i
N110 tz o o :�`�0
3 o 13
13 �...
o
N100 ° 0 0 1 0 ®o
0
o � B ,b m
13 r' 13 {�,13
N90 B 0 ° f {'r' 0 �C7
Em 13
0 13 B Q -. o 0
0 13 o o
13
Trenches
N80 P ° o 49go y[>� j
� fo 0
N70 F — — . azbed wire fe ce
0 81p
N50 z
�•
N40 ...st.. r11 U x go
N30
Pond
N20
NIO 4 0 -., 0 0
0 p 0o
L
E50 E60 E70 E80
LOCUS C
o 0 0 fs
CUS B 0
l� '�
.sq
\\ p�
° ° 11, ° ` ° ° 1
13 o
s
o g o� o 0 0
s •o
E90 E100 E110 E120 E130
Figure 6. Plan Map of 3IAN60 Showing Loci and Excavation Units.
E-,X
J_ J
E140 E150

SITE STRATIGRAPHY
The soils at 31AN60 have been classified by the SCS as belonging to the Creedmore series. The soils,
generally fine sandy loams, are very deep and moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained, and
are found on 2-8% slopes (Robert Horton, Jr., personal communication, 1998). Creedmore soils are
found on gently sloping uplands and formed in residuum from fine-grained Triassic material. This series
has a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Upslope soils west of the site are classified as Badin
series. This series is comprised of channery silt loam and consists of moderately deep, well -drained soil
formed in residuum from Carolina slates and other fine-grained rocks. It is found on strongly sloping,
moderately deep, well -drained upland soils with slopes of 8-15%. The surface layer of Badin channery
loam series is loamy with a significant number of channers mixed in, whereas the subsoil is clayey.
Soil profiles illustrated in the excavation units at 31AN60 varied within and between loci areas. Locus A
displayed two distinct soil profiles. The most common profile was primarily represented in the southern
and eastern portion of the locus area and consisted of two stratigraphic layers. Stratum I, a plowzone (Ap
horizon), was composed of a brown (IOYR 5/3), yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4), or light olive brown (2.5Y
514) silt loam extending approximately 12-16 cm below surface (cmbs) (Figures 7 and 8). Stratum II was
minimally disturbed by plowing and consisted of a strong brown (7.5YR 4/6, 5/6, or 5/8), reddish yellow
(7.5YR 6/8), or yellowish red (5YR 4/6) silty clay loam, or a reddish brown (5YR 4/4) clay loam. This
stratigraphic layer probably constitutes a Btl horizon or possibly a C horizon and was excavated to a
maximum of 34 cmbs.
A second soil profile encountered in the northern and western portion of Locus A was comprised of three
distinct soil layers (Figure 9). Stratum I, plowzone (Ap horizon), was basically similar to the other soil
sequence represented in Locus A. This horizon was primarily comprised of a brown (10YR 5/3) or light
olive brown (2.5Y 5/3 and 5/4) silt loam (Figure 10). This layer was overlying a thin Stratum IA
consisting of a relatively intact but truncated A/B or E transitional horizon. This soil layer was comprised
of a light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4 and 2.5Y 6/4) or olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6) silt loam. The subsoil
(Stratum I1), representing a Btl or possibly a C horizon, is comprised primarily of a strong brown (7.5YR
5/6 and 5/8) silty clay loam and clay loam; a yellowish brown (10YR 5/6 and 5/8) silt loam, clay loam, or
i • silty clay loam; or a yellowish red (5YR 4/6 and 5/8) silty clay loam.
Several test units in the northwestern portion of the site encountered unusually deep soil deposits
associated with Stratum IA. In this portion of the site, particularly between N105-110 E60-80, the
transitional horizon (Stratum IA) was considerably thicker than in the remaining test units that
encountered a similar soil sequence (Figures 11 and 12). In general, Stratum IA in this portion of the site
extended 16-36 cmbs.
Stratigraphy in the southern portion of the site (Locus B) was considerably different from that observed in
the main portion of 31AN60 (Locus A). A typical soil sequence encountered in Locus B is characterized
by a Stratum I, plowzone (Ap horizon), primarily comprised of a grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) silt loam that
extended approximately 12 cmbs (Figure 13). The intact subsoil (Stratum II) consists of a light olive
brown (2.5Y 5/6) silty clay loam that was excavated to a maximum of 30 cmbs (Figure 14).
37

§ § § § §
§
f
o
e R R 8 S
IF
S
\d
§
�
§ �
as
k:
Q
7I
k
k/
�
i
-- ;
�
<
E
;
c
e
(
<
]
�
Q
�
o
§ d
)
�
�
/
�
3&

'�,y. r a ✓' ,k' ee;r 7'nak,4 '` s° ,� t�
`aq
: �q�.� k' ���'��„�� �� Fr'"°E '� �"" "' � � ,.ter � �' � ,��y �r-?�•`k� �� .n°°: �x�r + >,�rs
:r „fo. ✓F7t� ''_ '. " N
LYGsT wALk
e } 3AN M V6
v� �>k. � ti'j 41'. �'€'�' 'lY \ - S "�� �nws � �h 1 't "J�`t£� ••1" °���iY,4��P •�+., �v"�� v�.d �"
4,J r� t ^�" 3., :`1 t �` l �°` "^'# 4 rr '.-•. > , 3 y ewZT cT� ,�" i�b•z -a.°
)< �. � �s s Jik '^, . • ° p�a+.� e e )4 "tt� ,�.•r.�}�.eL 1 ^+ �� F. �
10
6EaT
apt
t' ^^\ l f * l f`. •>xt x .� ... coUTH WALE
u+` r
JAPE 1-S Fi r�av�
• ' � � xiA°� �. �,��t��r gt � a::
� t,� ..�.-fir �''.h -•e"� tE"�-�s^�.....- t „� r •' �� .,

o
o e
'
0
o T
.� U
y � s
CU
O
in C7
U
�
0
O OO C
Pa ai �
co
t
¢ --� C
C
s
t/
O!
9
O
u
c
z
a
a
0
R
3
z w�
c
c_
a�
w
to
I
40

{
p b
z
.a
3
F
o ,
� U j
O �
y
�O
�
•y � h
h N v
F.
o •� �,
V
�
C
x
c
�
O
c
A
c
K
G
G
K
o �
r
c
s
i
v
a
4
t
u
Ell

zHPSE
3
el
r
' �� "�,R"' �t�'�{��"ylik,,,, ,-'r ram _{ =' '•i i�a.-„,_.,*�.4A<,��,, ���'�xg • '�-'`£���., 4},
1 Y =:.1 ..._SJ i 'X'� ;r. s� dpM, .� ..c i '"'-=' •2�"
,7"a'z.'sr� '�•- �,;• _ _ •^ta i� `L ,r.' o rh . f..: sc
a � h e 7S"�"� �" ,* �.s�. }'- j � �.b �►s°` ,ryy, z- ra�`` vice",r'�'Y r r as � ',,
e � r "� •ri c ?'�� `�h, � � �� �<.r Aer 'x `�.� -s. S.� °�'� �-era-�"` �r „ � cam''' 3�i
s Ne;''° �oa • ii 7, r�:��J .J _ :u.� , •x � :a n , x ` .. a, ay.�N _.1
k f'
.., � a N � tiso. •. � r 5 R s ;F�
77
Yy
�:: • Y
yam=_. r S-Ew
r
IV
{ q
3 � ¢a's7 3 PI . , 91
SOU L i PROFI LE
- • .....,'
y
_ - .W _
-_ i�.rG+•yul f'
�tfV -.J _ar�� ,,..��r,{TTK�� r �-y:��.� _•
.-i'_

z�
.a
3
H
o
c�
U
O ,
W
N �
W
v. b
Q
v
z G7
(,
N p
a o
3 � �
0
� o �
w �
0
a
3
x
~
s
co
ati
o
�
4
C
C
4
s
A
0
r�C
z wl
U
d
b
u
43

FEATURES
Eight soil anomalies were assigned feature numbers and investigated during the Phase II and III
excavations. Of the eight anomalies, two (Features 1 and 7) were considered to be cultural in origin,
while the other six were determined to be the results of natural disturbances, attributed mainly to rodent
and root action. Figure 15 illustrates the location of features on the site, and Table 1 presents summary
data on each feature. The following discussion summarizes the features by type and provides a detailed
description of each feature. A description of Feature 1 can be found in the Phase II report (Guan 1992).
Table 1. Features Identified at Site 31AWA
Length
Width
Dq:th
Rrrctional
Associated Artifacts
Feature Location
(cm)
,(cm)
(cm)
D=M
Interpretation
or Absolutel�ites(s)
1
N70.6 E100.7
100
50
4
Fire QwJW Rock Scatter Huth?
Fire Qaclod Rock
2
N1001 E60.4
79
49
30
Irregular Sal Stain
Tree
Biface Fiagmmts, W itage
3
N87.7 E104.3
21
14
7
Oval Sal Stain
Tree Root
None
4
N101A E98.3
18
18
25+
QrcWar Soil Stain
Tree Root
W itage
5
M5.3 E83
22
16
63
Irregular Soil Stain
Tree
W itage
6
N85.9 E83.6
16
6
15
Qnxilar Sal Stain
Tree
Now
7
N73.2
30
18
15
Qrcrdar Sal Stain
Small Pit
Early Woodland Piscataway Projectile Pbint,
E115.3
Bif" Ragnmts, Debitage� Fue Qaclaed Roc1S
1;
Calibrated AD 1435 to 1665 Radiocarbon Date;
610B.0 OCR Date
8
N73.8
60
25
35
Ltegrdar Sal Stain
Rodent Burro! DNLIge
E115.3
Tree Root
Feature 2
Centerpoint Coordinates: N100.1 E60.4
Test Unit (Provenience): 19, 20 (N90-91 E60); also STP 33
Top of Feature: Defined at base of Stratum I (Ap horizon)
Elevation: 88.655 in
Size: 79 cm east —west x 49 cm north —south x 30 cm deep
Feature 2 was originally identified during the Phase II investigations in STP 33 (N90 E60). Since only a
part of this feature was encountered in this test pit, Feature 2 was partially excavated, with the remainder
preserved for future data recovery investigations (Guan 1992:37). Phase II investigations of this feature
revealed that it extended approximately 42 cmbs and yielded nine pieces of rhyolite and quartz debitage
and two Stage III biface fragments.
Further investigations of this feature during the data recovery excavations revealed that this feature began
' at the interface of Strata I and II within TUs 19 and 20 (N90-91 E60) as a soil stain of brown (10YR 4/3)
:. silt loam. The outline of the feature was very irregular and several branched appendages extended out
from the stain. No additional artifacts were recovered from this feature during the data recovery
excavations. The appendages extending from an irregular outline of the feature stain suggests that
y Feature 2 may be the remnants of a tree, and thus non -cultural in origin.
fey
Elm
so-

0 Phase II shovel test
Grid 0 Meters 30
North Phase II test unit
Magnetic Contour Interval 50 Centimeters
North O Phase III test unit
N120 r
i
_ 1
LOCUS A
N110 R o 3 0 o x Fo *x°
13 13
4
t7 FA �� r
N100 ° J' ° ° o�Mo
�$ a 8 m13
r
°V ° o
N90 eF.2 0 o a
®FH B F3® 13
13 0 0 _ = 13 o 13
0 _ 13 O o i
N80 P imago' �y Trenches
N �" F.8
— - 0 F.1 0F.7 0
N70 I d $�.
N irefence
. x
000
+ Pond
LOCUS C
N40
LOCUS B
N20 -..Q 0 0 0 ° Wtr'ess °
N 10 a o 0 0 0 ° o °
,�.
iii.
,�
L L d,\ L T L L -L L L J
E50 E60 E70 E80 E9I E100 E110 E120 E130 E140 E150
Figure 15. Location of Features at 31AN60.
►,
45

Feature 3
Centerpoint Coordinates: N87.7 E104.3
Test Unit (Provenience): 34 (N87 E104)
Top of Feature: Defined at base of Stratum I (Ap horizon)
Elevation: 87.49 in
Size: 21 cm east —west x 14 cm north —south x 7 cm deep
Feature 3 was located in TU 34 (N87 E104) and was encountered at the interface of Strata I and IA at a
depth of 14-21 centimeters below datum (cmbd). This feature was a small oval stain with diffuse
boundaries and consisted of a yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) sandy loam. It was approximately 14 x 21 cm
in diameter and approximately 7 cm deep with a shallow basin profile. No artifacts were recovered
during the excavation of this feature and it was determined that it was non -cultural in origin, possibly
representing a tree root.
Feature 4
Centerpoint Coordinates: N101.4 E98.3
Test Unit (Provenience): 29 (N101 E 98)
Top of Feature: Defined at base of Stratum I (Ap horizon)
Elevation: 87.77 m
Size: 18 cm north —south x 18 cm east —west x 24+ cm deep
Feature 4 was identified in TU 29 (N101 E98). It was encountered at the base of Stratum I and extended
from 18-42+ cmbd. This soil anomaly was circular in plan and displayed an irregular, deep conical
profile that abruptly tapered with increasing depth. Feature 4 measured approximately 18 cm in diameter
and the feature fill consisted of a light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) silt loam. Six pieces of rhyolite debitage
were recovered during the excavation of this feature, including two tertiary biface thinning flakes, three
tertiary flake fragments, and one tertiary shatter. Due to the extreme depth of the feature and the abrupt,
irregular profile it is likely that this feature represents a tree root and is non -cultural in origin.
Feature 5
Centerpoint Coordinates: N85.3 E83
Test Unit (Provenience): 39 (N85 E83)
Top of Feature: Defined at base of Stratum I (Ap horizon)
Elevation: 88.0525 m
Size: 22 cm north —south x 16 cm east —west x 63 cm deep
Feature 5 was identified in TU 39 (N85 E83) at the junction of Strata I and II. This feature consisted of
an irregular soil stain with diffuse boundaries and measured approximately 16 x 22 cm. The feature fill
consisted of a brown (10YR 5/3) sandy clay loam. This feature contained a moderate amount of charcoal
flecking and excavation revealed an irregular floor with insloping walls that extended from 4 to 63 cmbd.
Feature 6, also located in TU 39 is located approximately 60 cm north. A flotation sample produced three
rhyolite flakes, including three tertiary flake fragments and one tertiary biface thinning flake. The low
density of artifacts that were recovered from the excavation of the Feature 5, along with the diffuse and
46
TT

irregular nature of the soil anomaly may indicate that this feature represents a burned root system and is
therefore, non -cultural in origin.
Feature 6
Centerpoint Coordinates: N85.9 E83.6
Test Unit (Provenience): 39 (N85 E83)
Top of Feature: Defined at base of Stratum I (Ap horizon)
Elevation: 88.0725
Size: 16 cm east —west x 6 cm north —south x 15 cm deep
Feature 6 was identified in TU 39 (N85 E83) at the junction of Strata I and II. This stain was circular in
plan with clear boundaries and consisted of a brown (10YR 4/3) sandy clay loam. The stain measured
approximately 16 x 6 cm and excavation revealed straight, insloping walls that gradually tapered to 22
cmbd. No artifacts were recovered during the excavation of this feature. Feature 5, which likely was a
burned tree root, is located approximately 60 cm south. Feature 6 was determined to be non -cultural in
origin and likely represents a tree.
Feature 7
Centerpoint Coordinates: N73.2 El 15.3
L4 Test Unit (Provenience): 55 and 57 (N72-73 El 15)
Top of Feature: Defined at base of Stratum I (Ap horizon)
Elevation: 86.69 m
Size: 30 cm north —south x 18 cm east —west x 15 cm deep
Feature 7 was identified in TUs 55 and 57 (N72-73 El 15). This feature was encountered at a depth of 18
cmbd at the base of Stratum I. Feature 7 displayed clear boundaries and was oval in plan, measuring
approximately 18 x 30 cm (Figure 16). The feature fill was comprised of a dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy
loam with sandstone gravel, petrified wood, and light charcoal flecking. Feature 7 displayed a shallow
basin shaped profile (Figure 17). Hand -excavation of narrow trenches around this feature failed to yield
evidence of other associated features, such as post molds possibly representing a structure.
One small rhyolite contracting stemmed projectile point, one rhyolite Stage II distal biface fragment, and
two quartzite fire -cracked rocks were recovered from this feature. Also recovered during the excavation
of this feature were 18 pieces of rhyolite and quartz debitage, including 10 tertiary flake fragments, five
tertiary biface thinning flakes, and three tertiary unspecialized flakes. The projectile point is
morphologically similar to the Piscataway type commonly found in Virginia, Maryland, and elsewhere in
the Middle Atlantic region and is assigned to the Early Woodland period.
Soil samples from within the feature area displayed higher phosphate and pH readings than the Stratum
f ' IA matrix. The elevated signature levels likely results from organic remains and indicates that Feature 7
was probably associated with food processing or storage. Flotation of a soil sample from this feature
produced bark (n=99), pitch and pitchy wood (n=11), acorn nutshell (n=l), pine needle (n=362), grass
seeds n=3 , unidentified rhizome n=2 , and fragments of pine 75% , red oak group 20% , and diffuse
( ) ( ) t� P ( ) g P( )
porous wood (5%). These findings suggest that the forest composition near the site likely consisted
`. predominantly of pine with an admixture of oak (see Appendix 2).
L
47
E

N 174
El 15
Boulder
16cmbd PA f4
N 173
El 15
N72
El 15
Figure 16. Feature 7.
14 an bd
A � I
17 an bd
Feature 8
Dark brown (IOYR 3/3)
sandy loam
Feature 7
Dark brown (IOYR 3/3)
sandy loam
Stratum IA
Yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6)
Silt loam
Rem i I eip)-r
rol
I
M
KEY
Feature
Charcoal Flecking
Rock
Root
Boulder
North
I
0 30 cm
48

&V
Figure 17. View of South Wall Profile of Feature 7.
A sediment sample from. this feature was also examined for opal phytoliths to discern the local ecology at
the time of deposition of the feature fill. The phytolith assemblage from this feature reflects a mixed
grass and non -grass environment (see Appendix 3). Grasses are well represented, with Panicoid class
predominating. This type of assemblage suggests a warm, moist habitat characterized by grassy meadow
with scrub and thicket (weeds, shrubs, and sub -shrubs). Although a heavy forest canopy is not indicated,
this may be the result of cultural bias associated with deposition of certain floral material.
A sample of wood charcoal obtained from the feature fill and flotation sample yielded a corrected
radiocarbon age of 350±60 years: 1600 A.D. (Beta-116314), suggesting that Feature 7 dates to the Late
Woodland or early historic period. Sediment from this feature was also submitted for OCR dating. This
sample yielded an OCR date of 2555±76 years: 605 B.C. (ACT #3134), indicating an Early Woodland
date for this feature. Since the relative associations of the contracting stemmed projectile point, the
radiocarbon date, and the OCR date are inconsistent, it is impossible to determine the chronological
placement of this feature. However, since the projectile point and OCR date are in congruence, it is
probable that the radiocarbon date is incorrect and that the wood charcoal was exposed to post -
depositional contamination or that the wood charcoal may result from later deposition event (e.g., burned
root penetration) in the feature.
49

Feature 8
Centerpoint Coordinates: N73.8 El15.3
Test Unit (Provenience): 55 (N73 E115)
Top of Feature: Defined at base of Stratum I (Ap horizon)
Elevation: 86.7 m
Size: 60 cm east —west x 25 cm north —south x 35 cm deep
Feature 8 was located in TU 55 (N73 E115) and was identified at the interface of Strata I and IA. This
feature measured approximately 25 x 60 cm and extended 1.4- 46+ cmbd. It had an irregular outline with
clear, distinct boundaries near the top but becoming diffuse towards the bottom of the feature. At this
point the feature extended at an obtuse angle into the underlying subsoil (Stratum II), suggesting that it is
either a tree root or animal burrow disturbance and therefore non -cultural in origin. The feature fill was
comprised of a dark brown (10YR 3/3) sandy loam with charcoal flecking. One rhyolite Stage III distal
biface fragment and nine rhyolite and quartz flakes were recovered from the matrix of this anomaly.
These included three tertiary unspecialized flakes, three tertiary flake fragments, two tertiary biface
thinning flakes, and one tertiary shatter.
50

VII. HISTORIC ARTIFACTS
Seven historic period artifacts were recovered during the Phase III investigations. The assemblage
includes six pieces of glass and one ceramic sherd. These artifacts apparently represent incidental
discard, perhaps relating to the pre-1960s use area as a dairy farm, and do not represent a historic
archaeological component.
GLASS
The six glass artifacts recovered from the Spring Site during the data recovery excavations are comprised
entirely of clear container glass fragments. All of these artifacts were recovered from the plowzone
(Stratum I) within Locus A. With the exception of a single fragment recovered from the central portion
of the locus area (N79 E98), all were recovered from the northeast portion of Locus A. These included
four pieces from N87 El 16 and one piece from N100 E121.
CERAMICS
�.: In addition to the glass artifacts, one redware ceramic sherd was recovered during the Phase III
investigations. This sherd was recovered from the plowzone (Stratum I) in the north —central portion of
Locus A (N87 E104). This artifact represents a fragment of the vessel body and did not exhibit any
evidence of surface decoration or glaze.
51

LS
VIII. CERAMIC ARTIFACTS
Five prehistoric ceramic sherds were recovered from the site during data recovery investigations (Figures
18 and 19). An additional three sherds were recovered from the site during the testing investigations
(Gunn 1992), and one other sherd was recovered during the initial survey of this site (Gunn and Wilson
1992). All of these sherds were recovered from mixed contexts (plowzone). Only one sherd, perhaps
broken during excavation, was conjoinable in the artifact assemblage. All of these sherds are small, 2-4
cm in diameter and 7.5-9.8 mm in thickness. Despite the size of the ceramic fragments, many of the
specimens were able to provide morphological, technological, and decorative data.
Figure 18. Prehistoric Ceramic Artifacts from 31AN60.
Top Row: a-b) Badin Cord Marked. Middle Row: c-e) Yadkin Fabric Impressed. Bottom Row: f-g) Indeterminate.
SURFACE TREATMENT, TEMPER, AND SHERD COLOR
Five of the sherds in the artifact assemblage from 31AN60 displayed identifiable surface treatments.
Aside from surface treatment, no decoration was present on any of the sherds. Three of these sherds have
fabric impressions on the exterior surfaces and scraped —smoothed interior surface treatments (Figure 18c—
` e). Unfortunately, the exterior surfaces of these sherds were slightly eroded and warp and weft diameters
could not be determined. One of these sherds had a reddish yellow exterior surface and brown interior
surface; one had a strong brown exterior surface and a very pale brown interior surface; and one had a
strong brown exterior surface and a brown interior surface.
a,+
52
1,

Grid
North
Magnetic
North
0 Meters 30
Contour Interval 50 Centimeters
o Phase II shovel test
® Phase II test unit
❑ Phase III test unit
N120 r T T T T T T T T
LOCUS A I `
No o o
110 \ 'o y o
p \YADICN'
,�.
p FABRIC ❑ \ ❑
❑ D&FESSEED \.
N100 ° ° ° ° ®• a
o
II7FJZ�7CVAIE p p
B`1DEVYAD1CgV ` p
N90 8 0 Rn/ o p�
e e
ADINCORDMARKED
N80 P ° 0 89 o YADK N❑ Trenches r o r
FABRICIWRES ED
N70 F� °
��dWuefe 81 IlmE1ER1YIDVA7E °
.e ms nce BADPWADKEV
N60
77
u�
N50
v
PondJr
. LOCUS C
N40 ="� ' I s4 Re q
N30„ . tl ti
LOCUS B
N20 4. o o o o qss °
N10 0 0 0 0 o o o \r�
13
13
B� O
0 P 0' ° o �� o 0 0
..A..
E50 E60 E70 E80 E90 E100 E110 E120 E130 E140 E150
S Figure 19. Distribution of Prehistoric Ceramic Artifacts from 31AN60.
.a
53

Two sherds in the artifact assemblage from this site have cord -marked exterior surfaces and roughly
smoothed interior surfaces (Figure 18a—b). The direction of cordage twist of both cord marked sherds
could not be determined as they were either intentionally smoothed or too eroded. One of the cord -
marked sherds had a strong brown exterior surface and a brown interior surface, whereas the other sherd
displayed a brown exterior surface and a yellowish red interior surface. Exterior surface treatments could
not be discerned for the four remaining sherds in the artifact assemblage, as they exhibited eroded or
damaged surfaces; however, all have roughly smoothed interior surfaces (see Figure 18f—h).
There is little variation among the types of temper present in the ceramic artifacts. There are two types of
temper represented in the ceramic assemblage: coarse grit and sand. Coarse grit is most common and is
present.in five sherds, including all three of the fabric -impressed sherds and two of the eroded sherds.
The grit consists primarily of quartz; however, an unidentified dark mineral resembling hornblende or
gneiss was included in one of the fabric -impressed specimens. The particles are angular to subangular
and measure >0.5-2 mm in size. Nearly all of these sherds had coarse grit added to the paste in moderate
proportions (25-50%); however, one sherd displayed a light proportion (<25%) of grit added to the paste.
Sand is present in four of the sherds, including both cord -marked sherds and two eroded sherds. The sand
is generally present as fine to medium-sized particles (>0.25-0.5 mm), with the exception of one sherd
that contained very fine (<0.25 mm) particles. This sherd also displayed a light proportion (<25%) of
sand added to the paste, whereas the other three sherds contained sand temper in moderate proportions
(25-50%).
VESSEL FORM AND VESSELS REPRESENTED
All of the sherds represented in the artifact collection from this site are undiagnostic as to vessel portion
and are classified as general body sherds; no rim or basal sherds were recovered from the site during the
archaeological excavations. The minimum number. of vessels represented in the assemblage was
- determined through the consideration of surface treatment, temper, paste characteristics, and vessel
thickness. Three vessels were represented in this manner. Two of these represent fabric -impressed vessel
fragments and the other represents a cord -marked vessel fragment. Both of the fabric -impressed vessels
►' appear to have been constructed by coiling, as coil breaks are present on two of the three sherds. The
same is also true for the cord -marked vessel, which contained coil breaks on all of the representative
sherds.
TEMPORAL AND REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
The nine sherds recovered from 31AN60 appear to represent two Woodland components. Based on
temper and surface treatment, two of the sherds are assigned to the Badin series and three are classified as
Yadkin series. The sand -tempered cord -marked sherds likely date from the Early Woodland to the early
Middle Woodland period and are comparable to the Badin Cord Marked series. Badin ceramics are
described as very fine sand —tempered with either cord -marked or fabric -impressed surfaces (Coe
1964:27-29). The Badin series was the first ceramic.tradition to be introduced in the southern part of the
North Carolina Piedmont following the Late Archaic period Savannah River complex. This series
appears to have been a precursor to the succeeding Yadkin ceramic series, which soon followed in the
sequence of ceramic development in the region.
54

A
eI
The coarse grit —tempered ceramics with fabric -impressed surface treatments probably date from the Early
Woodland to the Middle Woodland period (ca. 800 B.C.-A.D. 500). These sherds are characteristic of the
Yadkin Fabric Impressed series, which is most commonly reported from the inner Coastal Plain and
lower Piedmont of North and South Carolina (Anderson 1996:272). Despite representing two separate
periods of development within the same ceramic tradition, it is believed that the Yadkin series represents
a continuation of the same manufacturing techniques and styles utilized in the earlier Badin series (Coe
1964:30). Ceramics in the Yadkin series have been described as tempered with crushed quartz, with cord -
marked, fabric -impressed, or linear check -stamped surface treatments (Anderson 1996:271-275; Coe
1964:30-32). Based on stratigraphic succession at the Doerschuk site, Coe (1964) placed this series into
the Middle Woodland period. Since Coe's initial description; of Yadkin ceramics, researchers have found
that Yadkin ceramics may extend somewhat earlier in the chronological sequence and can include greater
variability in surface treatment and temper particle size and shape, among other manufacturing techniques
(Anderson et al. 1982; Blanton et al. 1986; Ward 1983).
Yadkin series ceramics have been associated with radiocarbon dates of 180±70 B.C., 380±80 B.C., and
520±70 B.C. at 38SU83 in Sumter County, South Carolina (Blanton et al. 1986). Claggett and Cable
(1982) report a calibrated date of 240±95 B.C. associated with Yadkin fabric impressed and cord marked
ceramics from 31CH8 in Chatham County. Yadkin fabric impressed sherds are also associated with a
radiocarbon date of 220±80 B.C. from the E. Davis site (31FY549) in Forsyth County (Davis 1987;
Rogers 1989).
55

IX. LITHIC ARTIFACTS
Data recovery excavations recovered 7968 lithic artifacts from 31AN60 (Table 2). In addition, nine lithic
artifacts recovered during the previous Phase II investigations are included in the following analysis,
because a test unit excavated during the data recovery investigations encompassed the STP from which
they were recovered. Of the 7977 lithic artifacts, 7751'(97.17%) consisted of unmodified lithic debitage
and 94 (1.18%) were chipped stone tools. One hundred twenty-six (1.58%) fire -cracked rock fragments
(wt.=4.6 kg), one groundstone tool (0.01 %), and five pic-ces of cobbles/chunks (0.06%) were also
recovered. Of these lithic artifacts, 7966 (99.86%) were recovered from Locus A and the remaining 11
artifacts (0.14%) were recovered from Locus B.
HAFTED BIFACES
Eighteen hafted bifaces and biface fragments were recovered during the Phase III excavations (Table 2).
To provide a more complete understanding of the assemblage, data on two additional hafted bifaces
recovered during the Phase H testing are also presented.
Early Archaic
One hafted biface representing the Early Archaic period was recovered during the data recovery
investigations at 31AN60 (Figure 20). This point is made of rhyolite and is classified as a Big Sandy
projectile point. This artifact was recovered from Stratum I at N105 E103 and has a transverse fracture
that has been resharpened (Figure 21e). It has rounded or slightly expanding shoulders, and the stem
exhibits shallow side notching and a concave base. The base is ground and there is a moderate amount of
grinding on the notches.
Kneberg (1956:25) and Cambron and Hulse (1960:17) first identified the Big Sandy type in the Tennessee
River Valley of northern Alabama and Tennessee, where it occurs in highest frequency. This point type
t appears to be relatively uncommon in the North Carolina Piedmont, and occasionally appearing in the
Appalachian region (Purrington 1983:110). Based on stratigraphic association from rockshelters in the
Southeast, this type overlaps in age with the Dalton horizon and has been dated from about 8,000-6,000
B.C. (Justice 1987:61).
Middle Archaic
Two hafted biface fragments that can be assigned to the Middle Archaic period were recovered during the
data recovery investigations (Figure 22). Both artifacts were recovered from the plowzone horizon and
both are made of rhyolite. The proximal fragment of a Guilford projectile point (Figure 21b) was found
at N81 E90 and a nearly complete Morrow Mountain projectile point (Figure 21a) was recovered from
N104El11.
Morrow Mountain and Guilford projectile points are ubiquitous throughout the Piedmont and parts of the
Coastal Plain regions of North Carolina during the Middle Archaic period. These types were first
identified by Coe (1964) at the Doerschuk site along the Yadkin River, approximately 25 km (40 miles)
to the north of the project area. The Morrow. Mountain type has been radiocarbon dated from several
56
..

Table 2. Phase III Lithic Artifacts from 31AN60.
Artifact Type
Debitage
Unspecialized Flake
Biface Thinning Flake
Bipolar Flake
Blade Flake
Flake Fragment
Shatter/Chunk
Biface
Stage I
Stage 2
Stage 3
Core
Amorphous
Bipolar
Fragment
Hammerstone
Projectile Point
Big Sandy
Morrow Mountain
Guilford
Savannah River Stemmed
Small Savannah River Stemmed
Gypsy Stemmed
Piscataway
Badin
Caraway
Unclassified straight stemmed
Unclassified stemmed
Retouched Flake
Side
End and Side
Indeterminate
Scraper
Concave
Denticulated
End
Side
Thumbnail
Fire cracked rock
Unmodified chunk
Unmodified split cobble
Rhvolite
Ouartz
uartzite
1093
434
2
3457
367
0
4
10
0
2
1
0
2095
122
0
40
85
1
2
10
26
2
5
1
7
2
7
1
l
1
1
4
2
3
2
1
I
I
2 1
2
l
1
1
I
2
1
1[1 IS
1
I 1152 21
Chert Chalcedony
0 3
2 4
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
3 8
Other TOTAL
2 1534
22 3852
0 14
0 3
1 2219
3 129
2
10
1 28
8
7
9
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
126
3 4
1
32 7977

o Phase II shovel test
Grid 0 Meters
13 North Contour Interval 50 Centimeters Phase II test unit
Magnetic
North p Phase III test unit
N 120 r
}-lYdlRRA f
LOCUS
N110 o o L o a- Ck
. p Li1GSANM"
13
N100 O° :' ° ° ° °
p p I �`
p
N90 B ° ° J
p ® 0 17
° o p o °
N80 P 5g o Trendies
ar8�y m B
Ai ❑
N70 F ° o o
"'wiefence
N60 �� iwqv. o
N50 F
Pond J
LOCUS C
N40
. a
rirwNolr xirrrr
—� LOCUS B L _
N20 0 07 0 0 9
ti •o
N10 o� 0 0 0 0 []os o
� ;�9
p d.
o R ' o o o -m ok o 0
..... .........
Cp
," �....R .:...::.:
10
E50 E60 E70 E80 E90 E100 E110 E120
Figure 20. Distribution of Early Archaic Projectile Points from 31AN60.
...L J_ J
E130 E140 E150
58

Figure 21.. Archaic and Woodland Projectile Points from 31AN60.
Top Row: a-b) Morrow Mountain; c-d) Savannah River. Bottom Row: e) Big Sandy; f-g) Badin; h) Caraway.
59

--�
Grid 0 Meters 30
North
Magnetic Contour Interval 50 Centimeters
North
° Phase II shovel test
Q Phase H test unit
13 Phase III test unit
N120 r. T T T T T T T T
*POW 33
1; LOCUS A # t
N110 o o `�� o o.A.
° MORROW
t] MOUNrAIN
p %
N 100 ° o ° ° o ®o .�
p ° 8 m
13
N90 B o o
m °
° ° 813
GUILFORD
N80 P ° f So. "� O ° 10 �4 Trenches o
�.
N70 F °
��wirefence o1.
r
N60 Fr
N50
Pond
.r LOCUS C
T
N30 �O ate_. ... s 0 0 0 0'_ o—• ��
yy!
�IlllAill�y�r� .
LOCUS B
N20 }r. 0 0 0 0 ati ass 0
N10 o o o 0 0 o o N9
° �
13
s
0 � ° ° �m ° %o �. o 0 0 � Cl
CP
0
L J_ i J_ ! L 1 L 1 J_ J
E50 E60 E70 E80 E9I E100 E110 E120 E130 E140 E150
Figure 22. Distribution of Middle Archaic Projectile Points from 31AN60.
• 11

archaeological sites in the region. Radiocarbon dates associated with Morrow Mountain projectile points
generally fall securely in the Middle Archaic period, around 3,477-5,255 B.C. in the greater Southeast
(Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Eastman 1994a, 1994b). There is some indication, however, that Morrow
Mountain points may extend into the Late Archaic period in some areas, as suggested by a Morrow
Mountain point found in association with a radiocarbon date of 3,430 B.C., reported from Virginia
(Griffin and Reeves 1968). Anderson (1979) has also suggested that the 3,477 B.C. date is too recent.
Coe (1964) discovered Guilford points stratigraphically above Morrow Mountain points at the Doerschuk
site. Gunn and Wilson (1993) report a radiocarbon date of 3,400 B.C. associated with an apparent
Guilford hearth in South Carolina and it has been suggested that this point generally dates to ca. 3,500-
4,000 B.C. (Blanton and Sassaman 1989:54; Coe 1964:43-44,118).
Late Archaic
f Eight hafted biface fragments representing the Late Archaic period are included in the artifact assemblage
from 31AN60. One hafted biface fragment classified as a Savannah River projectile point was found
during the current data recovery investigations of site 31AN60 (Figure 23). This artifact was found at
N79 E99 and was recovered from the plowzone horizon (2-14 cmbd). It is made of weathered rhyolite
and exhibits an impact fracture on the distal end and comer/barb fractures on the shoulders (see Figure
21d). The proximal portion of a Late Archaic period Savannah River point was also recovered in a shovel
test during the Phase II testing investigations. This artifact was recovered in the plowzone of N90 E100
and is also made of rhyolite (Guan 1992). This projectile point also displays transverse fracture on the
Li distal/medial portion and a comer/barb fracture on one shoulder (see Figure 21c).
The Savannah River point type was first described by Claflin (1931) and is probably the best-known Late
Archaic point type in the Southeast. Coe (1964:44-45) also found Savannah River points
stratigraphically above Guilford points at the Doerschuk site. This type is assigned to the Late Archaic
period and is believed to date about 5,500-3,000 B.P. (3,500-1,000 B.C.) (Justice 1987:163-164; Oliver
1985). A number of radiocarbon dates associated with Savannah River points have been obtained from
North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia and range from 2,915-1,310 B.C. (Eastman 1994a, 1994b;
Gleach 1987).
1 Four of the Late Archaic projectile points are classified as Small Savannah River (Figure 24c—f). All of
these artifacts were recovered from Stratum I from the central of south—central portion of the site (Figure
23). Small Savannah River point type was first identified by South (1959) in the Roanoke Rapids Basin
of northeastern North Carolina. Oliver (1981:181) describes this point type as "a small to medium sized,
broad, triangular bladed point with a rectangular stem and a straight or slightly excurvate base."
11
Morphological similarities and stratigraphic associations with the older Savannah River Stemmed point
indicates continued development of the Piedmont tradition (Oliver 1983:136). Small Savannah River
points appear to be a temporal marker for the latter part of the Savannah River phase (Oliver 1981:181).
It has been consistently found in the upper Savannah River zone at several stratified sites in North
Carolina, including Doerschuk, Gaston, Warren Wilson, and Gashes Creek. In North Carolina this type
has been associated with a. radiocarbon date of 1565±140 B.C. at the Warren Wilson site (Oliver
1981:183). Small Savannah River points have also been associated with a radiocarbon date of 2155±85
B.C. and 1955±95 B.C. at the Plum Nelly site in Virginia (Potter 1982). A radiocarbon date of 890±155
B.C. was also associated with Small Savannah River points at site 44GO40 in Goochland County, Virginia
(Gleach 1987).
61

o Phase II shovel test
Grid 0 Meters 30
• North ® Phase II test unit
Ma �` ' . Contour Interval 50 Centimeters
1th
North 0 Phase III test unit
N120 r
-t.LOCUS A I +t�
N110 o 0 0 o l `,= 1y,
13�N�Do
FM a
N 100
0 0 0 ARFdSLp
�
MALL VANNAH R VER l
'
SAVA 1]
N90 8 ° RIVER —�
J
o n 8 p o 0
SAVANNAH
N80 f °gyp 0 RIVER 0 0
Trenches
* J 015 m A?
N70 fence 1.
6 r'
N60 Fj
. e6' o � .y _
N50
N40
N20
N10 p J. 0�-,. 0
'13
', L
0 R a o �
mp
.u,
L i \ L
E50 E60 E70
0
7L
E80
r r
k"L L
E90 E100
9
0
L 1 L - J- J
E110 E120 E130 E140 E150
Figure 23. Distribution of Late Archaic Projectile Points from 31AN60.
62

r.
Figure 24. Archaic and Woodland Projectile Points from 31AN60.
Top Row: a) Bare Island; b) Unclassified Stem. Second Row: c-f) Small Savannah River.
Third Row: g-h) Gypsy; i) Unclassified Straight Stem. Bottom Row: j-1) Piscataway.
One Bare Island -like projectile point was recovered from the north —central portion of the site (Figure
24a). This artifact was recovered from Stratum I at N100 E97 (see Figure 23). The Bare Island type has
been described as a medium to large, narrow, stemmed point with a straight to slightly contracting stem
and a straight to slightly convex base (Ritchie 1971:15; Stephenson 1963:141-142). This type has been
recovered from Late Archaic to Early Woodland transitional period contexts throughout the Northeast,
Mid -Atlantic, and parts of the Southeast regions. Although this type is commonly found in the inner
Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions of Maryland, Virginia and some parts of South Carolina (Gleach
1987; McLearen 1991; McMakin and Poplin 1997; Stephenson 1963), archaeological correlates of this
type appear to be rarely documented in North Carolina.
One unclassified projectile point likely associated with the Late Archaic period was also recovered from
this site during the data recovery investigations (Figure 24b). This artifact was located in Stratum I at
N105 E103 in the northeastern portion of the site (see Figure 23). This specimen is nearly complete
except for a small haft fracture at the proximal end. Because of this fracture it could not be accurately
classified; however, it is possible that it may represent a Small Savannah River or a Gypsy projectile
point.
Early Woodland
Seven Early Woodland projectiles were recovered from 31AN60 during the archaeological investigations.
Two Gypsy projectile points were recovered from Stratum I at the site during the data recovery
investigations (Figure 24g—h). One of these was recovered from the southeastern portion of the site at
- N73 El 15 while the other was obtained from the north —central portion of the site from N96 E105 (Figure
25).
Ea
63
I

6J
i
` GridMeters !
J North Contour Interval 50 Centimeters
Magnetic
North
O Phase I1 shovel test
® Phase II test unit
13 Phase III test unit
N120 r T T T T T T T T T
Opw" MEMO"
..� aiYiii91w �^
LOCUS A i +
# iE
N110 o {, o o a �o
o' °
13
13
BADIN'
0 0
N100 gOf PISCAT AY
•.� . $° ° e GYPSY
° °
8 0 °
N90CLASSnUED BADIN
.r--�� SB•5 � STRAIGIffir � m
° ° {LLu11t
13
13
N80 P 0 ° o ° O
o Trend
Ir
f K'Irgfence 1 PLSCATAWAY °
N60
N50
N40 .s~
N30
N20 P
x
rid°
LOCUS B
°
N10 R
p O O i
13 i]
0 R a,q o O �m
�•. `d'
mo
L
E50 E60 E70 E80
�e
•o
O O O
°
° s
o �o 0 0 0 0
.0 X0
BO E100 E110 E120 E130 E140 E150
Figure 25. Distribution of Early Woodland Projectile Points from 31AN60.
64

The Gypsy point type subsumes morphologically and temporally similar Plott Short Stemmed (Keel
1976:126-127) and Thelma Stemmed (South 1959:151-152) point types (Oliver 1981:168). Gypsy
points have been described as "a small, triangular bladed point with a square or rectangular straight stem,
and a straight, slightly incurvate base, or excurvate base" (Oliver 1981:188). Oliver (1981, 1985)
suggests that the Gypsy point represents the lineal descendant of the Small Savannah River type and is the
terminal expression of the Piedmont Stemmed tradition of lithic manufacture at several Piedmont sites
where it has been found. Gypsy points are known to co-occur stratigraphically with cord marked and
fabric impressed Badin and Vincent phase ceramics and large triangular points at a number of sites in the
North Carolina Piedmont, including Doerschuk, Gaston, and Thelma sites (Oliver 1981:208-209,
1983:136). Gypsy points have also been found along with Early Woodland Deep Creek phase ceramics
on the Coastal Plain (Phelps 1983). Like the Small Savannah River type, the Gypsy type is dated
primarily by stratigraphic association. A Gypsy projectile point was associated with a radiocarbon date of
220±80 B.C. from the E. Davis site (31FY549) in Forsyth County, North Carolina (Davis 1987; Rogers
1989).
Two projectile points classified as Piscataway points were recovered during the data recovery
investigations, and an additional point of this type was recovered during the testing investigations (see
Figure 24j-1). One of these specimens was recovered from the central portion of the site at N97 E89
(Figure 25). The other two points were from the southeastern part of 31AN60. One of these was
retrieved from N70 E100, while the other was recovered from N73 E115. Two of the Piscataway points
were recovered from the plowzone, whereas the remaining one was found in Feature 7, a small pit.
The Piscataway point type is described as a small, narrow, thick contracting stemmed point with a
rounded or pointed base (Stephenson 1963:146-147). Few radiocarbon dates are known for this point
type. It has been dated primarily by stratigraphic associations and repeated occurrences with Early
Woodland sites, and is reputed to date to ca. 1000-500 B.C. (Gleach 1987:93). This type of small
contracting stemmed point evinces temporal and stylistic homogeneity of other types found throughout
the Middle Atlantic and Southeast regions, such as Poplar Island, Rossville, and several others. The
Piscataway type, or morphologically similar types, are found along much of the Coastal Plain and
Piedmont regions of the Atlantic Slope from New Jersey to Georgia but is poorly understood in North
Carolina. Morphologically similar points were recovered from Early Woodland contexts along the Haw
River in Chatham County (Claggett and Cable 1982). Most recently, Gunn et al. (1998) have documented
the occurrences of a morphologically similar type on several sites along the Upper Neuse River in Wake
County, which has been tentatively defined as the Wakefield type. Although the Wakefield points were
not directly associated with any radiocarbon dates, these points were associated with Gypsy and Eared
Yadkin points and Yadkin ceramics, suggesting an Early Woodland period temporal placement.
One unclassified straight stem projectile point was recovered from Stratum I at N87 E74 (Figure 25).
This artifact represents the proximal portion of hafted biface that is also fractured laterally (see Figure
24i). Due to its fragmented nature it could not be sufficiently determined if this artifact represents a
Small Savannah River or a Gypsy projectile point.
Two hafted biface fragments in the Phase III lithic assemblage were classified as Badin projectile points
- (see Figure 21f—g). These artifacts were both recovered from the plowzone; one was found at N 10 1 E97
and one was recovered from N86 E96 (see Figure 25). Both projectile points are made of rhyolite. Coe
(1964:45) described this point type as a "large, crudely made triangular point"; however, the specimens
represented at 31AN60 appear to be fairly well executed. Badin projectile points are assigned to the Early
Woodland period and co-occur with Gypsy projectile points. They are thought to represent the first
occurrence of the intrusive Piedmont Triangle tradition that supplanted the previous stemmed Archaic
k
65

cultures (Coe 1964:55,123-124; Oliver 1981, 1985). No radiocarbon dates are known for this type in
North Carolina.
Late Woodland
One hafted biface representative of the Late Woodland period was recovered from 31AN60 during the
data recovery investigations. This point is made of rhyolite and is classified as a Caraway Triangle (see
Figure 21h). It was recovered from the plowzone of N106 E76 in the northwest portion of Locus A
(Figure 26). Caraway Triangles have been described as small, straight -sided, isosceles triangular points
with straight or slightly incurvate bases (Coe 1964:49). Caraway points have not been radiocarbon dated
in North Carolina (Eastman 1994a, 1994b), although a questionable radiocarbon date of A.D. 65 was
associated with fabric —impressed sherds and a Caraway -like point in Chatham County (Claggett and
Cable 1982). In general, Caraway points are associated with the Late Woodland and early Historic
periods in the Piedmont (Daniel and Davis 1996:7).
UNHAFTED BIFACES
Fifty complete and fragmentary unhafted bifaces were found at 31AN60. These included two biface
fragments recovered during the Phase I survey (Gunn and Wilson 1992), eight fragments recovered
during the testing excavations (Guan 1992), and 40 recovered during the testing investigations (see Table
U 2). This artifact group can be divided into three categories on the basis of reduction stage: Stage I, Stage
II, and Stage III.
Stage I
There are two Stage I biface fragments represented in the lithic assemblage for 31AN60, both of which
were recovered during the data recovery investigations. Both artifacts are made of rhyolite and are
heavily patinated. Both of these specimens are distal fragments. One appears to have been rejected
during bifacial reduction because of a transverse fracture (Figure 27a), whereas the other was rejected
F because of a large hinge fracture (Figure 27b).
r
Stage II
Fourteen complete and fragmentary Stage H bifaces were recovered from the site (Figure 27c—n). Four of
these were obtained during the testing investigations and the remaining 10 were recovered during the data
3 recovery excavations. Nearly all are made of rhyolite (n=13); only one is made of quartz. Most of the
fragmentary bifaces (n=6) are distal fragments; the remainder are proximal (n=2), medial (n=1), or
indeterminate (n=2) fragments. Only three of the Stage H bifaces are complete.
M.
0

o Phase II shovel test
Grid 0 Meters 30
North Contour Interval 50 Centimeters ® Phase II test unit
Magnetic
North p Phase III test unit
N120 r T T T T T T T T T '1
LOCUS A ;
N110 0 0 0 ~ a 41 } 0
AWAY ➢
CAR
■
p p\\ p�
N100F o o ° o o
p
�e8
p p
N90 8 0 o
. p
rpp B13
N80 P ° YOBBO 1 0 p
B�¢ m
XY
N70 ��`_ o e
azklrefence l�81
N60 h/
%
:.
N50 K a a €
N40
N30 .
N20 P
o
rrroYi
L OCUS B
0 l 0 . o
N10 P o o 0 0
p p
13
ti
p P o o o mm °.,
m�
L J_ J_ L ..1_. J_ l
E50 E60 E70 E80 E9C E100 E110
i
—L 1 � 1 J
E120 E130 E140 E150
Figure 26. Distribution of Late Woodland Projectile Points from 31AN60.
67

Figure 27. Stage I and Stage II Bifaces from 31AN60.
Top Row: a-b) Stage I; c-g) Stage 11. Bottom Row: h-n) Stage 1I.
Stage III
Thirty-four Stage III biface fragments are included in the complete artifact assemblage for the sites
(Figures 28 and 29). This number includes two recovered during the Phase I survey, four recovered
during the Phase II testing investigations, and 28 recovered during the Phase III excavations (see Table 2).
All of these specimens are made of rhyolite. Most of these artifacts represent distal fragments (n=21),
with proximal fragments (n=8), medial fragments (n=2), lateral fragment (n=1), and indeterminate
fragments (n=1) also represented. There is only one complete Stage III biface in the lithic assemblage.
CORES
Twenty-four cores and core fragments were recovered at 31 IN60 during the data recovery excavations
(see Table 2). In addition, two other cores were recovered during the Phase I and II investigations. These
artifacts included amorphous cores, bipolar cores, and core fragments. The majority of the cores were
quartz (n=20), with a small proportion made of rhyolite (n=5), and quartzite (n=1).
4
►.
68

Figure 28. Stage III Distal Biface Fragments from 31AN60.
Figure 29. Stage III Medial and Proximal Biface Fragments From 31AN60_
Top Row: a-b) Medial; c-d) Proximal. Middle Row: e) Complete; f-h) Proximal. Bottom Row: i-m) Proximal.
L
•'

Amorphous
This type of artifact exhibits random flake removal with no discernible orientation of previous flake scars.
Amorphous cores are utilized primarily for the production of flake tools in order to conserve bifaces
(Johnson 1986). Eight amorphous cores were recovered during the data recovery investigations. Selected
examples of this type of artifact are illustrated in Figure 30a—e. Raw materials represented include quartz
(n=5), rhyolite (n=2), and quartzite (n=1). One additional rhyolite amorphous core was also identified in
the Phase II artifact assemblage. The quartzite specimen is particularly interesting because of its
somewhat larger size (wt.=100.6 g) compared to the other rhyolite (wt.=18.8-54.3 g) and quartz
(wt.=29.1-37.5 g, except for one with wt: 71.5 g) cores.
Figure 30. Amorphous Cores, Bipolar Cores, and Core Fragments from 31AN60.
Top Row: a-e) Amorphous Core. Second Row: f-j) Bipolar Core. Bottom Row: k-o) Core Fragment.
The overall small to moderate size of these artifacts suggest that the cores were used predominantly for
flake production: they are generally too small for the manufacture of flake blanks for most Archaic and
Woodland biface types. In general, the quartz amorphous cores are comparable in size to the quartz
bipolar cores recovered from the site. Considering that two of the amorphous cores retain cortex, it is
likely that amorphous cores may have originated as stream cobbles rather than procured from vein quartz.
The quartzite core also displayed cortex, suggesting that it also likely derived from secondary stream
deposits. In contrast, the two rhyolite cores were heavily weathered and did not display evidence of
cortex. It is likely that the rhyolite cores were derived from primary sources, such as the rhyolite quarries
and outcroppings scattered throughout the Uwharrie Mountains to the north of the project area or from the
slate belts immediately west of the project area.
70

Bipolar
This type of artifact exhibits two opposing striking platforms or areas of percussion, which usually show
signs of crushing. Bipolar reduction allows for the efficient utilization and reduction of cobbles, pebbles,
and nodules. It often occurs with anvil stones and pitted stones; however, these types of artifacts were not
represented in the lithic assemblage from 31AN60. Quartz pebbles particularly are most effectively
reduced through the bipolar method (Dickson 1977).
At 31AN60 bipolar core reduction was apparently used exclusively for the reduction of quartz cobbles.
Nearly all of the bipolar cores recovered from the site were..produced from stream cobbles, with cortex
still evident on the surface of five of them. There are six bipolar cores and one bipolar core fragment
represented in the Phase III artifact assemblage, as well as one bipolar core from the Phase I assemblage;
all of these are made of quartz. Figure 30f j illustrates representative specimens of this type. Several of
the bipolar cores are relatively small and appear to have been utilized until all possible flaking surfaces
were exhausted. Considering their size and nature, it is unlikely that the cores were used in biface
reduction or as cobble tools. Presumably the bipolar cores were used for production of flakes for use as
expedient tools.
Core Fragments
Nine core fragments were recovered during the data recovery excavations (see Figure 30k—o). These
' include seven quartz and two rhyolite fragments (see Table 2). In general, these artifacts were
�'z considerably smaller than amorphous and bipolar cores, likely as a result of their fragmentary nature.
Cobble cortex was present on five of the quartz core fragments, reinforcing the notion that stream cobbles
primarily served as the nucleus of raw material for quartz reduction. One of the rhyolite core fragments
displayed a rough cortical surface suggesting that it may have derived from bedded outcrop sources.
EXPEDIENT TOOLS
Twelve expedient tools were recovered from site 31AN60 during the data recovery excavations (see
Table 2), and four were found at the site during the previous testing investigations. Of the sixteen
expedient tools found, there were nine pieces of modified debitage displaying evidence of edge
modification and seven unifacial scrapers.
Retouched Flakes
Nine artifacts displayed secondary modification manifested as edge retouch (Figure 3la—h). The Phase
III artifact assemblage includes three flakes that exhibit retouching along the lateral flake margins, two
with evidence of retouching along the end and side margins, and one flake that displayed retouching but
t, could not be oriented, thus preventing determination of side or end retouch. With the exception of one
quartz side -retouched flake, all of the modified flakes were of rhyolite. Three side -retouched flakes were
also represented in the Phase II lithic assemblage, two made of quartz and one of rhyolite. Overall, the
complete artifact assemblage includes three rhyolite side -retouched flakes, three quartz side -retouched
flake, two rhyolite end- and side -retouched flakes, and one rhyolite indeterminate retouched flake.
r
L
71

Figure 31. Retouched Flakes and Unifacial Scrapers from 31AN60.
Top Row: a-b) End and Side Scraper; c-h) Side Scraper. Bottom Row: i) Thumbnail Scraper; j) Notched Scraper;
k) Denticulated Scraper;1) End Scraper; m-o) Side Scraper.
Scrapers
A variety of scrapers was found at 31AN60 (see Table 2). With the exception of one side scraper, all
were recovered during the Phase III excavations. There was one example each of concave, denticulated,
end, and thumbnail scrapers, all made of rhyolite (Figure 31 i-1). In addition, two quartz side scrapers
were found at 31AN60 during the data recovery investigations, whereas one rhyolite side scraper was
recovered from the site during testing excavations (Figure 31m—o).
HAMMERSTONE
One hammerstone was recovered during the data recovery investigations, and one was found during the
Phase II testing excavations. These tools exhibited battering on the surface of one end and were
presumably used as percussion tools during early and middle reduction stages of tool manufacturing, and
possibly in other activities.
One specimen is a small, elongated quartzite cobble weighting 232.9 g. Battering is evident on one end
and the opposite end is broken. A second specimen is a flat, oval quartzite cobble that weights 600.2 g. It
exhibits battering on one end and along a portion of a lateral margin. A small amount of battering is also
present on the opposite, broken end.
72

UNMODIFIED DEBITAGE
Altogether, 7751 pieces of unmodified debitage were found at 31AN60 during the Phase III excavations.
Of that total, 6691 fragments (86.32%) are of rhyolite, 1019 (13.15%) are of quartz, three (0.04%) are of
quartzite, two (0.03%) are of chert, eight (0.1 %) are of chalcedony, and 28 (0.36%) are of unidentifiable
material. Table 3 presents data on the distribution of the various debitage categories by raw material type.
In order to identify behavioral activities associated with lithic reduction and tool manufacture, two
methods were utilized for the analyses of lithic debitage. Chipped stone morphology (McElrath 1986;
Morrow 1984) and mass analysis (Ahler and Christensen 1983) allowed for a thorough evaluation of the
lithic technology represented at -the site. These two methods provided a means for recognizing lithic
reduction stages and allowed for comparisons of different types of debitage frequencies between stages.
Table 3. Unmodified Debitage by Category and Raw Material Type.
Artifact Tvoe
Rhyolite
Ouartz
Ouartzite
Chert
Chalcedony
Other
TOTAL
t
Count Percent
Count Percent
Count Percent
Count Percent
Count Percent
Count Percent
Count Percent
Unspecialized Flake
1093 16.34
434 42.59
2 66.67
0 0.00
3 37.50
2 7.14
1534 19.80
Biface Thinning Flake
3457 51.66
367 36.02
0 0.00
2 100.00
4 50.00
22 78.57
3852 49.69
Bipolar Flake
4 0.06
10 0.98
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
14 0.18
Blade Flake
2 0.03
1 0.10
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
3 0.04
Flake Fragment
2095 31.31
122 11.97
0 0.00
0 0.00
1 12.50
1 3.57
2219 28.63
Shatter/Chunk
40 0.60
85 8.34
1 33.33
0 0.00
0 0.00
3 10.72
129 1.66
TOTAL
6691 100.00
1019 100.00
3 100.00
2 100.00
8 100.00
28 100.00
7751 100.00
Morphological flake attributes in the Phase III assemblage indicate that lithic debitage from 31AN60
dominantly results from the latter stages of the biface production, although the early and intermediate
stages of core and biface reduction process took place to some extent as well. In terms of cortical and
non -cortical reduction processes, unmodified debitage at 31AN60 exhibited an exponential curve -form
distribution pattern. Figure 32 illustrates the proportions of debitage in relation to reduction stages. A
. , high percentage of late -stage non -cortical flakes were recovered from the site, with few pieces of cortical
and decortical debitage resulting from the initial stages of reduction.
The cortex to non -cortex flake ratio was moderately high for rhyolite (1:20), yet considerably higher than
that for quartz (1:42). As cortex is removed during lithic reduction, the ratio of cortex to non -cortex
flakes decreases and the flakes generally become smaller. In general, the ratio of cortex to non -cortex can
have several implications concerning behavioral activities at a site: a low ratio would tend to suggest the
preliminary formation of tools, whereas a high ratio would seem to indicate the later stages of tool
production or resharpening associated with maintenance activities. The high ratio of cortex to non -cortex
flakes reflected in the lithic assemblage at site 31AN60 suggests that final tool production and/or
resharpening or existing tools likely occurred at the site.
73

-� Unspecialized +Biface Thinning Bipolar Flake
-�+-Blade Flake -.-Flake Fragment x-Shatter/Debris
8000 --Total
7000 '
6000 -
5000
Q 4000
w 3000
2000
1000
0 - -
Primary Secondary Tertiary
Reduction Stage
Figure 32. Distribution of Debitage Classes by Reduction Stage.
Table 4 presents information on debitage classes according to presence and absence of cortex. As Figure
32 and Table 4 illustrate, the relatively high proportion of noncortical late stage reduction debris (tertiary
thinning flakes) at this site suggests that initial decortication of raw material likely occurred at the
location of lithic resource extraction. This point is also supported by the fact that the mean weight of
early -stage, hard -hammer flakes (unspecialized flakes) is 1.97 g, compared to the average weight of late -
stage, soft -hammer flakes (thinning flakes), which is 0.65 g. This differs somewhat from bipolar flakes
(mean weight=3.16 g) and blade flakes (mean weight=0.7 g), although the sample of these artifacts was
relatively small and may not be statistically significant. On the basis of these data, it seems likely that
prepared cores and early reduction staged biface blanks were brought to the site and further reduced at
31AN60. The preponderance and overall small size of thinning flakes at this site suggests lithic working
activities were primarily focused on the reduction of cores and preforms into finished tools. Aside from
tool finishing, the presence of a large number of thinning flakes also indicates that resharpening activities
associated with general curation and maintenance of tool kits also likely occurred at the site during the
recurrent occupations. The correlation of cortex to non -cortex flake ratio with flake size is clearly a
function of the site's activities.
Table 4. Unmodified Debitage by Category and Reduction Stage.
Artifact Tvoe
Unsnecialized
Thinniniz
Flake
Bi olar Flake
Blade Flak:. Flake Fm,,ment
hatter/Chunk
TOTAL
Flake
Count Percent
Count
Percent
Count Percent
Count Percent Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Primary
28 1.83
24
0.62
0 0.00
0 0.00 9
0.41
2
0.41
63
0.81
Secondary
112 7.30
121
3.14
1 7.14
0 0.00 43
1.94
2
1.94
279
3.60
Tertiary
1394 90_87
3707
96_24
13 92_86
3 100.00 2167
97.66
125
27.666
7409
95.59
TOTAL
1534 100.00
3852
100.00
14 100.00
3 100.00 2219
100.00
129
100.00
7751
100.00
Aside from flake morphology, mass analysis is useful for quantifying patterns in chipped stone
- assemblage (Ahler and Christensen 1983:32). This procedure is based on the premise that as reduction
technologies and stages change, there is a corresponding change in the size and shape of flaking debris.
w This decrease in flake size as biface reduction sequences progress has been demonstrated by a number of
experiments (Henry et al. 1976; Newcomer 1971; Patterson 1982, 1990; Patterson and Sollberger 1978;
Riley et al. 1994). To determine if there are any distinctions to be made regarding flake size distribution
during lithic reduction, the flake assemblage was measured according to six size categories: less than 1
z
cm; 1-2 cm, 2-3 cm, 3-4 cm, 4-5 cm, and greater than 5 cm.
rkv
74

What ceramic vessel forms are present in the Woodland period components? What information do
vessel forms and direct evidence of use (sooting, pitting, erosion, etc.) provide concerning subsistence
and cooking practices (Hally 1986; Rice 1987)? How do changing vessel forms over time appear to
relate to changing settlement or subsistence practices? How do these compare with contemporary
vessel assemblages documented elsewhere in the Piedmont and adjacent regions (e.g., Blanton et al.
1986:96-99; Coe 1964; Herbert and Mathis 1996; Sassaman 1993a:127-151).
Is vessel form diversity reduced in comparison with other assemblages? Is there evidence for a trend
toward decreased vessel wall thickness from the Early through Middle Woodland period, as has been
suggested from studies elsewhere in the Southeast (e.g., Sassaman 1993b:141), or is there an actual
increase in wall thickness as documented in the North Carolina Piedmont (Woodall 1996)? If
present, how does this trend relate to changes in subsistence practices? Do vessel forms change in
relative frequency from bowls to jars as previously suggested for the Piedmont (Woodall 1996)?
What patterns of raw material procurement and reduction are evident for each of the components, and
how are these similar to, or different from, other documented lithic assemblages in the region? Is
differential_ access to raw materials responsible for differences in technological implications of the
artifact assemblage? Does a difference in lithic raw material selection suggest distinct sociopolitical
entities occupying the Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions during the Late Archaic and Early
Woodland periods (e.g., Sassaman et al. 1988)?
What information does raw material preference provide for participation in trade and exchange
networks and seasonal movements across the landscape? Does the preference of raw material relate
�.� to duration and intensity of occupation at this site? What is the relationship between raw material
origin and bipolar versus bifacial reduction techniques?
SUBSISTENCE
Evidence for subsistence systems and paleoecology during the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland
periods in the Fall Zone area is scant; therefore, the data recovery investigations sought to identify
subsistence practices in this transitional zone. This goal includes the identification of nut fragments,
bone, seed remains, and wood charcoal fragments; attempting to recognize specific foods and determine
their importance; and examining the overall pattern of changing foodways and their effects on the
prehistoric populations and the local environment. Previous excavations during the Phase II program at
31AN60 indicate that intact features are found below the plowzone. Such features can contribute both
quantitative and qualitative data on subsistence practices and exploitation of other seasonally available
resources. Some of the research questions concerning subsistence practices at 31AN60 follow.
What is the nature of subsistence -related activities at this site? What evidence is there for changing
subsistence practices through time? How do those practices relate to changes in material culture?
Can a focused adaptation be discerned from the subsistence remains, as has been observed elsewhere
during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods (Mouer 1990, 1991; Stevens 1991; Yarnell et al.
1985), or is a diffuse adaptation or mixed economy (hunting/fishing/gathering) implied? How does
this type of adaptation relate to mobility strategy and site function?
What role did hunting play in subsistence at 31AN60? Is there evidence of gathering and/or
domestication of plant foods? Do these indicate intentional landscape modification, such as that
20
a—

0
it
There was some variation between primary, secondary, and tertiary pieces of debitage across the six size
categories. Primary and secondary flakes tended to cluster in the 1-2 cm and 2-3 cm size categories
(Figure 33). The tertiary debitage recovered from the site exhibited an asymmetrical distribution.
Tertiary flakes are positively skewed toward the smaller flake size categories and tend to cluster in the 1-
2 cm range. Lesser amounts of tertiary debitage were observed in the debitage assemblage as flake size
increases. All debitage classes (except bipolar flake, blade flake, and shatter/debris) exhibited an
asymmetrical distribution skewed toward the 1-2 cm size category (Figure 34). Thinning flakes and flake
fragments tended to cluster in the 1-2 cm range, whereas unspecialized flakes tended to cluster in the 1-2
cm and 2-3 cm size categories. There was no significant distinction in size between the rhyolite and
quartz debitage. These two types of raw material also disp!ayed similarities with chert and chalcedony,
indicating that these materials were being worked and utilized in a similar manner. In contrast, quartzite
debitage consisted exclusively of larger (3-5 cm) cortical flakes, implying a different lithic reduction
strategy.
- �—Primary —a—Secondary —+—Tertiary
100 i
90
80
70
60 -
2 50
u
Ow 40
30
20
10
0 -
<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 > 5
Size (cm)
Figure 33. Distribution of Cortical and Non -Cortical Debitage by Size.
Flake size appears to provide a reasonable method for determining reduction patterns. The majority of
flakes recovered during the data recovery investigations ranged from 1 to 2 cm in size, with very few
flakes in the assemblage measuring greater than 4 cm. Size analysis revealed that as size decreases, the
ratio of cortical to non -cortical flakes changes, with cortical flakes becoming more numerous in the larger
size categories while non -cortical flakes outnumbered cortical flakes in the smaller sizes.
The limited range of size variation suggests that Site 31AN60 was likely utilized for similar activities
during the recurrent occupations. The low number of large flakes in the lithic assemblage, in conjunction
with the high proportions of tertiary flakes, indicates that prepared cores and bifacial preforms were
probably transported to the site for further reduction in the manufacturing of lithic tools. The lack of
variability of flake sizes observed from this site suggests that cores and biface blanks, particularly
rhyolite, were likely obtained from primary sources away from 31AN60. These tools could have been
brought to the site for further reduction and used to augment prepared tool kits, while the prepared tool
kits themselves were curated and refurbished.
F

6000
5000
e
4000
a, 3000
cz 2000
1000
—♦— Unspecialized —a— Biface Thinning
— — Flake Fragment —4, Shatter/Debris
�—Bipolar Flake X Blade Flake
+All Debitage
<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 > 5
Size (cm)
Figure 34. Distribution of Debitage Classes by Size.
UNMODIFIED COBBLE/CHUNK
Three lithic chunks made of unidentified material and one rhyolite chunk were recovered during the data
recovery investigations. In addition, one quartzite split cobble was also found. None of these artifacts
appears to have been culturally modified, and they may represent transported raw material sources stored
at the site for later reduction. Alternatively, these pieces of unmodified rock may represent naturally
occurring stone inconsequential to the prehistoric site occupation.
FIRE -CRACKED ROCK
During the data recovery program, 126 pieces of fire cracked rock (wt. 4.6 kg) were recovered from
31AN60. The artifacts are made primarily of quartz (n=111), with a small amount of quartzite (n=15)
also represented. This group of artifacts accounts for 1.2% of the Phase III lithic inventory by count but
32.8% of the lithic inventory by weight. The predominance of quartz suggests that this material may have
been easily procured and readily available nearby for constructing fires, use in cooking, and possibly
other activities.
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL SELECTION AND USE
Raw Materials Represented
4
A variety of raw material types was identified in the 31AN60 lithic assemblage. These included
porphyritic and flow -banded rhyolite; crystal, white, and rose quartz; quartzite; chert; chalcedony; and a
small amount of light brown to buff -colored crystalline material that could not be positively identified and
may represent a crystalline chert. Figure 35 illustrates the raw material types represented in the Phase III
'- lithic assemblage. The majority of the raw material consisted of rhyolite (n=6762, 84.77%). The second
most common lithic material present at the site was quartz (n=1151, 14.42%). Quartzite (n=21, 0.26%),
76

chert (n=3, 0.04%), chalcedony (n=8, 0.1 %), and unidentified "other" (n=32, 0.40%) were represented in
very small numbers.
100
90
80 _
70
60
u, 50 _
a�
a 40
30
20
10
0
G�
Raw Material
Figure 35. Proportion of Phase III Lithic Material Types.
The overall distribution of rhyolite at 31AN60 indicates that it occurs across the entire site at a minimum
density of 40 artifacts/square meter, but is primarily concentrated within two main areas of Locus A. The
largest concentration is located in the north —central portion of the site, mainly encompassing the area
between N90-105 E85-105 (Figure 36). This part of the site has a relative density of rhyolite artifacts of
approximately 140-430 per square meter, with peak artifact density located in the northern part of this
concentration area and a smaller peak located in the southwestern corner. A second, slightly less dense
concentration occurs in the south—central part of the site in the area of N70-85 E80-105. This area
yielded a density of rhyolite of approximately 60-290 artifacts/square meter. Peak density is located
along the western edge of this concentration area, with a smaller peak located along the eastern edge. A
third concentration of rhyolite is located in the northwest corner of the site. This area is encompassed
between approximately N105-110 E65-80 and yielded rhyolite densities of approximately 90-110
artifacts/square meter. Peak densities were observed toward the eastern edge of this concentration area.
A fourth concentration of rhyolite is relatively small in size and is located between N87-92 E107-115 in
.. the eastern portion of the site. This area was not as dense as the three other areas of rhyolite
concentrations, yielding an average of 70-80 artifacts/square meter.
Quartz is also widely scattered across the site, except at lower densities. In general, quartz is found at a
density of 5-25 artifacts/square meter in Locus A. Four distinct concentrations are evident and appear to
overlap the distinguishable rhyolite concentration areas (Figure 36). The largest of the quartz
concentrations is located in the north —central part of the site at N93-103 E85-105. This area displays a
density of about 30-80 quartz artifacts/square meter and spatially overlaps the largest rhyolite
concentration. Peak quartz density in this area occurs in the northeastern part of this concentration, in the
same area as peak rhyolite density. A second peak is also located in the southwestern part of this
concentration area, also correlated with a minor peak in rhyolite density. The second densest quartz
concentration occurs in the eastern part of the site around the vicinity of N83-90 E110-120. This area
77

110
100
Q 90
Z
80
70 '-
50
110
100
0 90
z
80
70 L-
50
Rhyolite
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
East
Quartz
0.0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
East
Figure 36. Distribution of Rhyolite and Quartz in Locus A.
78

yielded an average density of around 30-40 quartz artifacts/square meter. It is spatially associated with
the smallest of the rhyolite concentrations, occurring just to the southeast of that area. A third area of
quartz occurs in the south—central part of the site, around N80-85 E87-97. This quartz concentration is
spatially associated with the second densest rhyolite concentration and is situated in the northeast portion
of that concentration area. This portion of the site yielded an average of 20-30 quartz artifacts/square
meter with peak densities occurring in the southeastern corner of the area. This is in the same vicinity as
the peak rhyolite density for this area. The fourth concentration of quartz at 31AN60 is located in the
northwestern corner of the site. This area of the site yielded a density of 25-30 artifacts/square meter and
is located between approximately N103-110 E72-82. This area of quartz concentration also corresponds
directly with an area of rhyolite concentration (Figure 36).
Quartzite is widely scattered across portions of Locus A, essentially occurring in very low frequencies as
background noise (Figure 37). There is only one area of 31AN60 where this material appears to be
particularly concentrated. This quartzite concentration area occurs in the same general area as the largest
concentration of rhhyolite and quartz, in the north —central part of the site at N100-105 E95-100. This 5-
square-meter area yielded an average of 1-5 artifacts/square meter, whereas the remainder of the site
typically yielded 0-2 artifacts/square meter. The localized concentration of a small amount of quartzite
material would suggest the occurrence of a single lithic reduction episode. The low occurrence of
quartzite across the site may imply minor instances of the maintenance of existing toolkits.
Chert and chalcedony were grouped together for raw material distribution analysis because of their
extremely low representation in the artifact assemblage. These materials were rarely found at the site and
their occurrence is generally widely dispersed without apparent clustering. The only possible exception
may be a slight frequency increase located in the northeast portion of the site, encompassing the general
area from N100-110_E110-130 (Figure 37). This area of the site does not appear to be related to any
particular reduction station. It is uncertain if this subtle concentration represents a collection bias in the
overall distribution of chert and chalcedony, or if the presence of these materials in this area signifies a
single knapping episode, possibly for the curation and maintenance of an existing tool, during an
ephemeral occupation. As with quartzite, the infrequent occurrence of these materials widely distributed
` across the remainder of Locus A may be associated with curation of finished tools.
Overall, the unidentified buff -colored crystalline material is represented in minor quantities compared to
l that of rhyolite and quartz, but it does seem to occur in greater amounts than that of quartzite, chert, and
chalcedony. The unidentified raw material found at 31AN60 occurs sporadically across most of the site,
but it tends to be distributed primarily in the south—central part of the site in the area of N76-82 E90-98
(Figure 38). The concentration of this material appears to be spatially associated with the second largest
concentrations of rhyolite and quartz, which also occur in this part of the site. It is located immediately to
the southeast of the easternmost rhyolite peak and to the southeast of the quartz concentration. The peak
concentrations of unidentified material in this area were not high, averaging about 4-7 artifacts/square
meter. It appears that the concentration of the unidentified crystalline material in this part of the site may
be associated with a single event, either an individual knapping episode or the refurbishing of a finished
tool. Curation of existing toolkits may also explain the light occurrence of this material elsewhere across
the site.
79

'sal
Quartzite
110
Cry
100 . J
J
-. 90
O
Z
80
70
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
East
Chert and Chalcedony
110
100
0 90 r ,
z
80
i
70 L
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
East
rlgure.5i. vistriaunon or Quartzite, unert, and Lnalceaony In Locus A.
80

VIgure 325. VIStrloutIon or unluentmea Kaw Matenai In Locus A.
Source Locations
Three of the raw material categories represented at 31AN60 could have been procured within several
kilometers of the site and may be considered local materials: rhyolite, quartz, and quartzite. Although no
detailed geological mapping is available for the Wadesboro Sub -Basin, a large-scale map of the area
(NCGS 1985) indicates that metavolcanic bedrock occurs just to the west of the site area in the Carolina
Slate Belt. Furthermore, Daniel and Butler (1991, 1996) have identified or revisited a number of rhyolite
source areas in the Uwharrie Mountains approximately 48 km (30 miles) to the north.
Aside from locally available rhyolite, pieces of weathered, naturally occurring quartz and sandstone,
apparently derived from weathered conglomerates or other sedimentary rocks underlying the immediate
project area, were observed on the surface at 31AN60. Very few pieces of naturally occurring quartz and
quartzite were observed in the nearby streams adjacent to the site. In fact, the bed load of the streams
bordering the site is comprised almost entirely of silt and sand and there is little or no pebbles or cobbles
of any sort. It is possible that gravel beds and any potential lithic sources that may have been available in
the streams in the immediate area are buried under the historic period alluvial deposits resulting from
deforestation and subsequent erosion of the upland during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Alternatively, it is likely that secondary lithic sources of quartz and quartzite could have been procured
from gravel deposits in the larger streams in the area, such as Brown Creek, Pinch Gut Creek, or the Pee
Dee River.
The two remaining types of lithic material identified at 31AN60, chert and chalcedony, may have been
procured approximately 113 km (70 miles) to the northeast of the project area and could be designated as
nonlocal materials. The chert and chalcedony specimens, and brown crystalline material designated as
"other" raw material represented in the lithic assemblage at this site, are morphologically similar to raw
material identified from a prehistoric quarry (31LE83) in Lee County (Lautzenheiser et al. 1996). This
81

material is also similar to chert beds encountered during various geological investigations in the Durham—
Wadesboro Basin (Bain and Harvey 1977).
Chert is known to occur in several locations throughout the Durham—Wadesboro Basin. The Durham
Sub -Basin, the Sanford Sub -Basin, and the Colon Cross -Structure are all known to contain bedded layers
of limestone and chert in several locations of each of these sub -basins (Wheeler and Textoris 1978). The
chert is these areas is described as varying from a dark gray, mottled white to gray, or brown to light
brown medium crystalline chalcedony with crystalline quartz (Lautzenheiser et al. 1996:43-44). Chert
specimens macroscopically similar to material identified from the Durham—Wadesboro Basin have been
identified from a number .of archaeological sites in Alamance; Chatham, Lee, Wake, and Wayne counties.
These sites are apparently confined to areas within the Triassic Basin, and in proximity to the prehistoric
chert quarry 31LE83. This has led Lautzenheiser et al. (1996) to suggest that the distribution of chert
from these source locations is very localized.
Because of commercial exploitation of minable resources such as clay and coal in the Durham Sub -Basin,
the Sanford Sub —Basin, and Colon Cross -Structure, these sub -basins have been studied in considerable
detail; however, little is known about the Wadesboro Sub —Basin. Considering the structural similarities
that are likely present among these geological features, it is possible that the Wadesboro Sub -Basin holds
many characteristics in common with the other three sub -basins to the north and, therefore, may also have
the potential for containing deposits of limestone and chert. Unfortunately, further geologic research is
required in the Wadesboro Sub -Basin before this can be determined. If these explorations later find that
chert occurs in similar settings within the Wadesboro Sub —Basin, then it is reasonable to consider this
lithic type as local material. Alternatively, if it is found that chert is not available locally, then it is
apparent that chert and chalcedony obtained from the Triassic sub -basins to the north do not have a
localized distribution as suggested by Lautzenheiser et al. (1996), but rather can be found a considerable
distance from its point of origin.
Bifacial and Unifacial Tools
The distributions of hafted bifaces by lithic raw material type were provided in Table 2. As this table
illustrates, all of the projectile points from 31AN60 are of local rhyolite. Interestingly, no diagnostic
projectile points were made of quartz, the second most common lithic material represented in the artifact
assemblage. The difference in frequency of use among the two dominant lithic materials may relate to the
choice of one of the raw materials for its differing characteristics. It is likely that the fine-grained rhyolite
was better suited for the manufacture of bifacial tools. Alternatively, it is possible that the lithic
technology employed for quartz reduction did not include bifacial core technology, but rather expedient
core technology.
As with the projectile points, the majority of the unfinished bifaces represented in the Phase III artifact
assemblage were made of rhyolite (n=38). Of the two remaining staged bifaces, one was made of chert
and the other was of unidentified material. In the entire Iithic collection, rhyolite predominates (n=47,
94%), with quartz (n=1, 2%), chert (n=1, 2%), and other unidentified material (n=1, 2%) represented
insignificantly. The lower representation of chert and other material among the unfinished tools is typical
of the pattern expected for nonlocal material, especially considering their low presence in the artifact
assemblage, indicating that these materials generally arrived at the site in limited quantities and probably
as nearly complete tools. In fact, these two biface specimens are both classified as Stage III bifaces. The
chert biface is manufactured extremely well and may actually represent the distal portion of a hafted
biface. The lack of quartz biface fragments is somewhat surprising considering the large amount of
quartz debitage recovered from the site. It is possible that the low frequency of quartz bifaces may be
related to lithic technology that was used at the site. Apparently, the quartz was associated with expedient
82

core reduction that served to complement the more prevalent bifacial core reduction technology used for
rhyolite.
Information on the unifacial tools recovered from this site is similar to that seen for the hafted and
unhafted bifaces. Raw material preference for unifacial tools represented in the complete tool assemblage
is nearly exclusively rhyolite and is relatively consistent across most artifact types. Five of the retouched
flakes were made of rhyolite and one was made of quartz. One other retouched flake from the Phase II
artifact assemblage was made of rhyolite and two were made of quartz. All four of the concave,
denticulated, end, and thumbnail scrapers recovered during the data recovery excavations were made of
rhyolite, whereas both side scrapers were made of quartz. The only rhyolite side scraper represented in
the artifact assemblage was recovered during the Phase H testing investigations.
Cores and Debitage
The pattern of raw material preference for cores at 31AN60 is in direct contrast with that of the bifacial
and unifacial tools. The majority of the cores included in the Phase I —III artifact assemblage are made of
quartz (n=21, 80.8%). Only four rhyolite cores (15.4%) were recovered from the site during the different
excavations. One quartzite core (3.8%) was also represented in the artifact assemblage. When compared
with raw material preference for bifacial and unifacial tools, the data suggest that a bifacial core reduction
strategy was predominantly used for production of rhyolite tools. In contrast, it provides supporting data
that there was a primary emphasis on expedient core technology utilizing amorphous and bipolar core
reduction techniques for the manufacturing of quartz artifacts. Expedient quartz cores are likely the result
of functional limitations and raw material constraints.
The majority of debitage fragments (n=6691, 86.32%) recovered during the data recovery excavations are
of rhyolite. Quartz was the second most prevalent lithic material at the site, comprising 13.15% (n=1019)
of the debitage fragments. The remaining specimens of debitage fragments, constructed of local and
nonlocal material, were present in minute quantities. These included three pieces of quartzite (0.04%),
two fragments of chert (0.03%), eight pieces of chalcedony (0.1%), and 28 fragments of unidentifiable
material (0.36%). Data on the distribution of the various debitage categories by raw material type are
presented in Table 2.
BIFACIAL BREAKAGE, RESHARPENING, AND REUSE
Patterns of hafted and unhafted bifacial breakage, resharpening, and reuse in the 31AN60 artifact
assemblage were examined in an attempt to gather data on group mobility, settlement type, and lithic
production systems. In the past, functional interpretations of lithic tools have relied on the microscopic
examination tool edges utilizing low and high magnification (Keeley 1980; Odell and Odell-Vereecken
1980; Semenov 1964; Tringham et al. 1974; Truncer 1988). More recently, macroscopic examination of
fracture patterns has been shown to be effective in functional analysis (Cook 1976; Custer and Mellin
1986; Dunn 1984; Truncer 1988). Functional interpretation of bifacial fracture patterns has benefited
greatly from data gathered by Ahler (1971), Johnson (1981), Odell and Cowan (1986), and others to
discern patterned use on hafted bifaces used as projectile points.
High levels of artifact curation, including resharpening and other types of artifact reuse or recycling, are
` generally associated with high Ievels of group mobility, while lower .levels of artifact curation may
indicate lower levels of mobility (Binford 1979; Goodyear 1979; Parry and Christenson 1988:2-3).
Patterns of bifacial breakage may also provide insight into group stability. For instance, the presence of
0
83

large numbers of proximal point fragments, resulting from haft snaps and impact fractures, indicates that
arrow shafts with broken points frequently were brought back to the site for refitting or resharpening.
Projectile point resharpening is represented infrequently through time at 31AN60. Only one projectile
point, a Big Sandy point assigned to the Early Archaic period, shows evidence of resharpening. Although
a decrease in curation through time has been shown to be correlated with an increase in sedentism, the
overall absence of projectile point curation at this site suggests that rhyolite raw material was available in
such abundant supplies that conservation of this raw material was not of paramount importance.
Consequently, the relationship that tool curation may have had on group mobility at this site is unclear. It
is plausible that through time, adequate raw material could b-- acquired with relative ease. Consequently
the settlement patterns of local inhabitants during the Late Archaic through Early Woodland periods may
have been more focused toward the acquisition of food resources rather than reflecting an importance on
the acquisition of lithic sources, as was apparently the focus during the Early Archaic period (Daniel
1993, 1994).
Information on breakage patterns among projectile points from 31AN60 is provided in Table 5. This
table provides data on the number of fractures observed on individual projectile points for each specific
point type. Some specimens displayed more than one fracture, whereas others, such as complete
specimens, did not exhibit any fracture. Many of the projectile points in the artifact assemblage display
impact and/or transverse fractures (48%). Combined, these represent 12 of the 25 fractures recognized
across the assemblage. Impact fractures occur as a result of usage, presumably as a projectile (Ahler
1971:52). The occurrence of transverse fractures on bifacial tools suggests that these artifacts were likely
used as generalized processing tools for butchering and cutting. Aside from fracturing due to blade
binding associated with its use as a knife, transverse fractures can also occur during manufacturing (Ahler
1971:58,79). The prevalence of impact and transverse fractures in the artifact assemblage from 31AN60
suggest that these artifacts were likely damaged during hunting excursions or possibly during final
manufacturing stages. There was no evidence that would suggest that these artifacts were resharpened
and refurbished after fracturing. It is likely that these artifacts were either lost during use or discarded as
a result of the fracturing. In addition to impact and transverse fractures, comer/barb breaks were also
represented in significant numbers (n=7, 28%). This type of fracture can occur during use as a projectile
or during the final stages of the manufacturing sequence. In general, these types of fractures do not
provided a sufficient reason for rejection and discard of the tool.
" The majority of unhafted and unfinished bifaces are represented by distal fragments (n=27, 54%). There
are 12 proximal fragments (24%), three medial fragments (601o), and one lateral fragment (2%) also
represented among the assemblage. In addition, there are four complete unhafted bifaces (8%) and one
fragment (2%) representing an indeterminate portion of a biface. Many of the unfinished bifaces display
transverse fracturing (n=35, 48.6%) (Table 6). Hinge fractures (n=17, 23.6%) were also common. This
type of fracture does not necessarily lead to rejection of a biface unless it occurs with a different type of
breakage pattern that ultimately lead to rejection of the artifact.
When the frequencies of fractures are examined for different manufacturing stages, a pattern of
differential breakage appears. The Stage I bifaces display an equal number of hinge fractures (n=1) and
transverse fractures (n=1), but the sample is too small to make any meaningful interpretation. Stage II
bifaces tend to display a higher number of hinge fractures (n=9, 39.2) than transverse fractures (n=7,
' 30.4%). Longitudinal (n=2, 8.7%), perverse (n=2, 8.7%), indeterminate (n=1, 4.3%), and recent fractures
(n=2, 8.7%) are represented infrequently (Table 6). This patterning of bifacial fracturing changes
somewhat during the final stages of bifacial tool production. The collection of Stage III bifaces tends to
display a higher proportion of transverse fractures (n=27, 57.4%) than hinge fractures (n=17, 23.6%).
i— Corner/barb (n=2, 4.3%), longitudinal (n=1, 2.1%), perverse (n=4, 8.5%), indeterminate (n=1, 2.1%), and
recent fractures (n=2, 4.3%) were rarely observed. The occurrence of impact fractures on three of the
T
84

E�:A
0
O o
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 o
c
U
o 0
0 0 0
0 o c C o
d o 0 0 0
06
c
a
CD 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o
O o
c
Fa
0
+'
N N
N
to zM vn
O N .. N co
.• .+
U
O
U
C
0 0
O O O
O O O M M
O O O O O
O O
C
y
O O
O O O
O O O M M
O O O O O
O O
V
N M �•-�
to N
O O
.r
U
CI
00
000
- 00 �N
000
O
O
U
t�
00
000
or+000
00000
0o
c
v
O O
0 00
N kZ ClO O
O O CDN
C O
A
N
i0
>a
W
LV
U
o0
000
00000
00000
0o
c
eu c,
o0
ooc
o0000
00000
0o
ei
5
N
�a
�+
O O
O O O
O O O O O
O O O �--�
O O
c OI
U
0 0
0 0 0
O O O M 1—
0 0 0 0 0
O O
C
y-
O O
0 0 O
O O O M %S
0 0 0 O O
O O
eF
U
6,
M
�a
o0
000
000
00000
00
�•-
�I
0
U
O O
O O O
O Ci O M r`
O O O O O
O O
O
y
O O
0 0 O
O cn 0 en %0
O O O O O
O o
00
to in
O N
N M M N
N N
N
CN
L7r
O
U
++
O O
0 0 0
O O O O M
O O O O O
O O
O
UCD
CD
O O CD
Cl O O O
O O OO CoN
O G
N
c�
N
M
CC d
L
N
E
N M O O in
O O O
00
t`
Uo
UI
E
a�
•x t:
s•• 7 C j 'x
U
+ c3
�b
° m 5� p 3
C7in. CQ�D a�U�
W ri in a r; W C/I v�

C
O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O
y
O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 o
c
,4 r,
F„
CL
O
U
ul
OO
OD\ON000
00MooC07
vi
cI
U
a
CI
OO
O---�O-�ON
00
7
O
U
00
OOOOOM
000 MOO. -ice
00
N
Cl 0
O O C O O
O C O o0 O 6 N
eV
h
N
a�
00
0000
000 �00 rr
N
'UC
7
OO
OOOOOh
0000000 kA
M
UI
OO
00%00 0000
CC-;000006
00
N
�
�a
CD Cl
�O
0.
7
UI
c
Oo
Ov,0o0It
O.ntl:v,00le
�Q
y
UI
0 0
C %0 O O O C
0 00 \D 00 0 6 rz
00
vi in
M tM
vn �D v1 O kn
>
y
a
CI
O .-. N O h
O N h O
N
O
N
M
O
U
00
MOOOOh
00C)C> .o �
N
00
MOON 000
0000000 N
et
cOGi
V
'I
+r
O
O O — O N
O O O O
„� OI
U
OO
t*,: CO N
ONOMOOOI
�D
CD
N
� In Co O
t� 0 DD 0 0
M
UI
h
V, tn N M
O ^'
N
y y
...
c
a
N h^ •-• O 0%
... In O .-. O O h
h
O
U
O
O M 0 0 0 0
N
00
O 00000
OOOOOO1C
er
COUII
0.
~
C
0 0
O co O O O o
O M O O O O M
M
a
of
y
U
to
0Y
G
00
000000
OOOhOOM
00
�
V
O O
O C 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O t
f V
a�
O
O O
CDO O O Cl CoO
O O N O O N
N
U
W
UI
v
a�
N o Q o
o
tt "CA
o .� a
F
�n FA
to rn
O

specimens (6.4%) suggests that some may have been utilized as heavy cutting tools (Callahan 1979:115,
153).
An examination of all of the unhafted bifacial artifacts indicates that they either represent obvious
production failures and rejects, or were discarded after breakage in use. Although it is possible that some
of the transverse fractures seen on the Stage I —III bifaces may have been as a result of usage, most
probably occurred during manufacturing, thus leading to rejection. Considering that a primary emphasis
of Stage II biface reduction is reducing ridges and other surface anomalies, the higher occurrence of hinge
fracturing on Stage H bifaces is not unexpected. Some of the bifaces with hinge fractures may have been
discarded after a second and ultimately detrimental breakage; however, it is apparent that many of the
hinge fractures, at least during Stage H production, led to direct rejection. Presumably these specimens
were discarded during the manufacturing process because of the knapper's inability to complete primary
thinning of the artifact.
DEBITAGE FREQUENCIES AND TOOL PRODUCTION PATTERNS
Raw material for lithic reduction can either be acquired directly from primary sources, such as bedrock
outcroppings; from secondary deposits, such as gravel deposits in fluvial systems; or indirectly through
trade and exchange. Lithic materials procured directly from bedrock outcroppings are usually obtained
by means of a variety of extraction methods at a quarry. Procuring raw material from primary sources
may occur as a result of two cultural behaviors (Binford 1979). The first method, direct access, entails
special-purpose trips to quarry sites with the primary objective of obtaining lithic material. A second
method, referred to as embedded procurement, assumes that lithic material is acquired as a result of the
movement of culture groups across a landscape as they make their seasonal rounds. In turn, the seasonal
rounds are presumed to have been strongly associated with extractive resource areas.
Direct procurement at quarry sites is presumed to have been the most common method of obtaining raw
material in the Piedmont. This generally involves a variety of exploitative techniques in order to extract
the raw material; such methods involve the excavation of quarry shafts or small pits to obtain workable
pieces of raw material. Once suitable chunks of stone have been obtained, they can be reduced for
transport and further processing elsewhere. Aside from direct procurement at quarries, Stewart (1981)
has demonstrated that processing stations could have represented potential source areas of raw material
because of the large -sized debitage, projectile points, and manufacturing rejects. It is possible that groups
who were unable or preferred not to make an excursion into primary source areas could have exploited
the manufacturing debris and discarded preforms for their more immediate tool needs (Stewart 1984a:12)..
If direct procurement of raw material does not occur at quarry sites or nearby workshop sites, it may be
exploited from secondary deposits through expedient strategies. Secondary deposited materials may be
obtained as needed from locally available materials, such as stream -deposited nodules and cobbles, and
can be referred to as selective collecting. Certain types of otherwise non -local material may also be
available for procurement.. This was a particularly common method for obtaining non -local chert from
glacial outwash deposits of the northeastern United States. Selective collecting of river -floated chert is
also the generally accepted explanation for the presence of chert derived from the Ridge and Valley
region and found on archaeological sites in the Piedmont. From a cultural perspective of lithic
procurement behavior, this material may not be technically considered non -local.
Direct access of lithic material assumes widespread group mobility and is believed to have been the
primary means for acquiring lithic material throughout much of prehistory. Indirect procurement of lithic
kni
87

material may have occurred through kin -based exchange systems. In the Middle Atlantic region,
researchers have observed that the establishment of exchange networks for lithic material appears to have
occurred during the Late Archaic period, with exchange becoming less frequent during the Woodland
period (Custer 1984a, 1984b; Stewart 1984b; Ward and Doms 1983). The opposite is seen in the
Southeast region: the exchange of lithic material generally occurs late in the cultural sequence, becoming
prevalent with the emergence of Mississippian chiefdoms as exotic lithic materials became common in
tool assemblages (Sassaman et al. 1988).
There are three modes for the manufacture of bifacial projectile points in a direct procurement system
(Ericson 1984:4; Patterson 1990:555-556). Bifacial manufacturing stages can occur at or near the source
location of raw material, which has been designated by Ericson (1984:4) as a terminal production system.
Flake blanks can be manufactured at or near the raw material source location, with production of bifacial
preforms occurring at a different location, typically a campsite or workshop. Finally, the manufacturing of
bifacial preforms at the source location with subsequent bifacial reduction can occur at a final location,
such as a campsite or workshop. This is what Ericson (1984:4) has termed a sequential system.
In general, the frequency of early stage bifaces is expected to decrease with increasing distance from
quarry sources (Gardner 1977; Goodyear 1979). Gardner (1977) has suggested that the decrease in early
stage bifaces away from source areas and an associated increase in late stage bifaces are associated with a
decrease in net weight to enhance transport efficiency. However, in certain areas where early stage
bifaces appear to have been used as a form of exchange, such as between Piedmont Uplands and Coastal
Plain regions of the Middle Atlantic region, a different pattern emerges. In areas such as these, the
presence of early stage bifaces does not appear to be related to generalized distance —decay models.
Instead, they have been shown to increase in frequency with greater distance from source areas due to a
perceived value placed upon them in regional lithic exchange systems (Custer 1985; Stewart 1985b).
Although a number of quarries are known in the North Carolina Piedmont, only a few have been
investigated in North Carolina (Daniel and Butler 1991, 1996; Hargrove 1989b; Lautzenheiser et al. 1996;
Mountjoy and Abbott 1982). Most of these quarries are associated with the extraction of metavolcanic
rhyolite. Lautzenheiser et al. (1996) excavated a chert quarry (31LE83) in Lee County and discovered
that blades and preforms were removed from this site and bifacially reduced at a separate location,
suggesting a sequential production system. Similar techniques have also been observed at rhyolite
quarries located in the Slate Belt (Abbott 1996a,b; Mountjoy and Abbott 1982).
All of the diagnostic artifacts recovered from 31AN60 were made of rhyolite; therefore, it is easy to
associate temporal components with this material type. In contrast, despite the large number of quartz
fragments recovered from this site, no projectile points were made of this material. For this reason there
is no unequivocal evidence to determine with which temporal period quartz reduction is affiliated. For
the same reason, since there were no diagnostic artifacts made of chert, chalcedony, and other crystalline
material, these types of raw material can not be conclusively assigned to any specific component.
Despite the absence of diagnostic quartz artifacts, raw material distribution patterns indicate that the
intensive reduction of rhyolite and quartz co-occur in two main portions of the site. These two areas,
located in the north —central and south—central sections of Locus A, also are spatially related to the
extensive distribution of Late Archaic and Early Woodland projectile points that were found during the
excavations. The high occurrence of these two raw material types in this portion of the site suggests that
the reduction of these material types is primarily associated with the Late Archaic —Early Woodland
transitional period component.
Considering that exhausted and rejected tools, as well as debris resulting from tool manufacturing,
generally remain at the location where manufacturing occurs (Hayden 1979), it is apparent that the Late
88
NNW

Archaic —Early Woodland occupations were focused on intensive bifacial and expedient core reduction
and lithic tool manufacturing. This is supported by the fact that highest concentrations of unspecialized
and biface thinning flakes are in the north —central and south—central sections of Locus A (Figure 39). The
extensive nature of the artifact distribution in these two areas suggests that lithic tools were manufactured,
refurbished, or replaced at these locations. Furthermore, the abundance of late -stage bifaces and
associated thinning flakes suggests that manufacturing probably occurred in a sequential system mode,
similar to that seen elsewhere in the region, and that the early- to middle -stage biface preforms- were
reduced at quarry -workshops for easy transport. The high proportion of rhyolite material in the two main
portions of the site indicates a form of direct access procurement. Conversely, the large amount of cobble
quartz also associated with those two portions suggests that raw material demands were occasionally
supplemented through selective collecting of stream cobbles.
The chert and chalcedony that appear to be more prevalent in the northeastern portion of the site may be
associated with a Morrow Mountain component in this area. Unfortunately, since no projectile points
were made of this material, this observation in tenuous at best. An absence of defined activity areas based
on the production of unspecialized or biface thinning flakes would tend to underlie the fact that the
occupations in this portion of the site was relatively short-term.

110
Om
L 90
O
z
70 L-
50
im
MOO
i 90
0
►I
80
70 `-
50
Unspecialized Flake
O -
20
z°
?O
0
n
O O 0
SO ry0
1110 k
O N OO O
•'1 O
40 0
• O
40
O ?n 3p �n
60 70 80 90 100 110
East
Biface Thinning Flake
o�
I f 40
y0
00 0
0 80
2 ¢
to
120 130
60 70 80 90 100 110 120
East
Figure 39. Distribution of Unspecialized and Biface Thinning Flakes in Locus A.
e«
130
Ow

X. PALEOENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
PALEOETHNOBOTANICAL REMAINS
Carbonized paleoethnobotanical remains were recovered from one feature, a small pit, at 31AN60.
Information on the nature and quantity of the recovered remains is presented in Table 7. In general, the
floral assemblage recovered from Feature 7 at N72-73 El 15 was very limited. Categories of plant
remains identified from this feature include wood, bark, pitch, twig, acorn nutshell, pine needle, rhizome,
grass seeds, and unidentified plant material. A brief discussion of the carbonized plant remains recovered
from the site is provided below.
Table 7. Paleoethnobotanical Remains from Feature 7.
North 1/2
South 1/2
Total
SAMPLE WEIGHT (g)
>2 mm
2.33
0.41
2.74
1-2 mm
2.23
0.65
2.88
0.5-1 mm
0.77
0.16
0.92
Total
5.33
1.21
6.54
kz SAMPLE COMPOSITION (>2mm)
Wood
167
48
215
Bark
80
19
99
Pitch & pitchy wood
10
1
11
Twig
-
P
P
Acorn nutshell
(1)
-
(1)
Pine needle
(318)
(44)
(362)
Rhizome
2
-
2
Unknown
-
1
1
Seeds
(3)
-
(3)
Total
259
69
328
SEED IDENTIFICATIONS
Poaceae, grass family
3
-
3
WOOD IDENTIFICATIONS
Pinus spp., pine
15
15
30
Quercus spp., red oak group
4
4
8
Diffuse porous
1
1
2
Total
20
20
40
SAMPLE VOLUME (1)
12.5
4
16.5
Note: P = present in 0.5-2 mm charcoal.
() = count in 0.5-2 mm charcoal.
There were very few remains recovered from Feature 7 that could have potentially been used for
medicine, food, or technological purposes. The only floral remains recovered that could have served
those purposes consist of one fragment of acorn nutshell (Quercus spp.), three grass seeds (Poaceae
91

family) of unidentifiable species, and 362 fragments of carbonized pine needle. A single three -needle
clump of pine needle fragments identified in the floral assemblage indicates that the pine needle is
loblolly or possibly longleaf pine (Appendix 2).
It is possible that the acorn nutshell is related to subsistence practices; however, given that oak trees grew
on or near the site, it is possible that this single fragment represents an incidental inclusion. Although
some indigenous groups in North America are known to have included grass seeds in their diet, it appears
to be an uncommon trait among groups of eastern North America (Appendix 2). The presence of grass
seeds in this feature may suggest use for other purposes, such as pit lining, matting, or kindling for
starting fires. However, no grass stems were identified in this feature, which indicates that it is unlikely
that the seeds were introduced as a result of using the stems for technological purposes. The presence of
pine needle in this feature is quite unusual since it is generally not reported from archaeological contexts.
It is possible that the needles served a similar purpose as grass —that is, for pit lining to create a layer of
insulation or protective barrier against moisture, intrusive creatures, such as rodents and insects, or for
starting fires.
Wood charcoal constituted the most plentiful type of archaeobotanical remains from Feature 7. The
variety of species represented suggests that a Pine —Oak forest grew on or near the site during the Early
Woodland period. The majority of the wood charcoal recovered from Feature 7 consisted of pine (75%),
with fragments of red oak (Quercus spp.) group (20%) and diffuse porous (5%) also present. This
mixture may indicate a forest in succession, perhaps as a result of burning (Appendix 2). The presence of
grass seeds in Feature 7 would tend to suggest that the Pine —Oak forest was an open forest, rather than
climax forest, with adequate sunlight to support herbaceous vegetation.
PHYTOLITH ANALYSIS
Phytolith analysis was conducted of soil obtained from intact and dateable contexts. This method of
analysis was performed to discern aspects of ethnobotany, ecology, and climatic history of the site. One
phytolith sample was obtained from a small pit (Feature 7j and is attributable to the Early Woodland
period. Phytoliths are generally classified as either festucoid (wet, cool habitat), panicoid (wet, warm
habitat), or chloridoid (dry, warm habitat) (Appendix 3). The assemblage of preserved phytoliths from
_ 31AN60 was fairly homogeneous and primarily attributable to the panicoid group, the expected dominant
grass for this region. The chloridoid group, which is more indicative of a warm and dry environment, was
indicated by only one particle. No festucoid group particles were identified in the assemblage. The
absence or near absence of chloridoid and festucoid particles suggests that there was not much variation
in the local climate during the Early Woodland period. It indicates that during this period either a warm
and dry or cool and moist environment did not characterize the local ecological regime.
The phytolith assemblage from 31AN60 was predominately derived from non -grass flora. Cell forms
indicative of deciduous trees were not observed in the assemblage. This type of assemblage would
indicate that the local microenvironment was a grassy meadow with scrub growth and thicket rather than
a heavy tree canopy. Although pine needles were represented in the paleoethnobotanical assemblage, it
was inconclusive whether these particles were deposited naturally or as a result of cultural factors. In
order to determine if pine occurred at the site, phytolith mounts were scanned for particles attributable to
conifers, particularly pine. Additional scans of the phytolith assemblage indicate that the frequency of the
overall conifer particles is very low, which may suggest that deposition of pine needles in Feature 7 was
culturally determined and that it could have been used as bedding or kindling.
92

GEOCHEMICAL TRENDS
In order to discern potential anthropogenic variables associated with the cultural occupations at 31AN60,
thirteen sediment samples were analyzed for chemical composition (Appendix 4). Ten of these samples
were obtained along a single transect (E97) that bisected the two major artifact concentrations, including
one sample located off -site that was used as a control sample (Figure 40). The remaining three samples
were from within and around Feature 7, the only cultural feature identified during the data recovery
investigations.
Concentrations of major and trace elements are typically correlated with the size of sediment particles,
with clay and silt particles typically yielding higher element concentrations than sand because of their
greater binding capacity onto which the elements can adsorb (Appendix 5). Consequently, prior to
interpretation of the chemical characterization data, sediments obtained from the same provenience as the
geochemical samples were also submitted for particle size and total carbon analysis. This step was
necessary to normalize the chemical data and remove variance resulting from natural soil conditions.
A statistically significant correlation was noted between artifact density in the north —central and south—
central portion of Locus A and five different elements: barium, strontium, zinc, phosphorous, and
possibly calcium. Generally, barium, copper, manganese, strontium, and zinc are known to correlate with
buried soil horizons (Lewis et al. 1992; Morris et al. 1992). Although no buried surfaces are present at
31AN60, barium, zinc, and calcium displayed positive correlations with artifact density along the E97
f transect, whereas strontium had a negative correlation (Figures 41-44). The relationship of these
elements with activity areas and artifact density strongly suggests that the variation in barium, strontium,
zinc, and calcium is associated with cultural activities. Barium is commonly present in plants and zinc is
accumulated in plants as a micronutrient (Appendix 5). Since ash tends to concentrate elements
consumed by plants, it is possible that the corresponding variation in barium and zinc with artifact density
results from wood ash and possibly other organic residue scattered on the ground (Appendix 5). No
possible explanation is presented for the negative correlation of strontium and artifact density; however, it
appears that it is also related to cultural activity at the site.
It was expected that calcium would demonstrate a relationship with the activity areas because of its
abundance in plant and animal remains. This relationship was not strongly demonstrated, however,
E .. because of apparent liming associated with past agriculture in the vicinity of the control sample (Figure
43). The control sample yielded unusually high concentrations of calcium and certain other elements,
E including barium and strontium. The agricultural liming appears to have affected the corresponding
t correlation coefficients, when the chemical data are normalized. When the readings from the control
sample are ignored, there is a relatively good correspondence between calcium and artifact density
(Figure 43).
Research has shown that phosphorous is a good geochemical indicator of the intensity of habitation at
archaeological sites (Eidt 1977; Proudfoot 1976). This is primarily because bone represents the greatest
potential source of phosphate per weight of organic debris deposited at archaeological sites and because
of organic material added to the soil by plant recycling. As with the other elements discussed above,
physical variables are also related to the deposition and preservation of organic phosphate. These can
include soil pH, clay, or mineral content (Sanders 1978). Normalized values of phosphorous based on
carbon concentrations yielded the strongest correlation with artifact density (Figure 45). As with the
other elements discussed above, it appears that phosphorous acts as an indicator of cultural activity at this
site.
A
93
11

m
1
0
w
0
N
Da 004
too
40 O o 0
0
5�
1 G
0
�L 0
s • g °' O
♦�� W a
roo �
eo i
f
oot 0 f
to co C
°r. w i
0 4
o
o
o 0
� g n `
a, c
vs a
U) F
o 0 c
C/) 0,9
[�
U 4
C G
G S
N
U lo 4-
d
N �-
U7 C
0 0) coC
glJON
c
d
a
6i
94

55
-
50
500
�
400
45
/
L
v
40
i
300
c
CG
35
L
30
/
/
200 y
U
25
�
\ / \
Q
d
�
loo
20
15
- -
' — 0
70 75 80
85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
130 135
North Coordinate
—p— Number of
Artifacts Per Sq
— Ba(ppm)
`
Figure 41. Correlation of Barium and Artifact Densitv.
95

L-:
28
500
I
n
26
/
/
400
24
/
L
a�
d
22
/
/
300
20
s.
s.
/ \ \\
200
V18
w
/
16
�� \
L
Q
14
\
�
100
\
12 4
0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
�— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
— �-- Zn (ppm)
rigure 42. uorrelatton or zinc and Artitact Density.
M.

0.09 - —
500
n
0.08
/
400
0.07 /
�
0
0.06 /
300
a0.05
COO
c
0.04 /
200
,
0.03
100
/
0.02
0.01
1 0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
130 135
North Coordinate
—�— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
—a— Ca%
Figure 43. Correlation of Calcium and Artifact Density.
97

14 500
n
13 /
/ 400
12 /
300 R
PLO
\ / \ 200
U / / \ 2
d 100
-- 0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
p— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
-s Sr(ppm)
rlCP
-ure 44. uorrelatlon of Jtrontlum and Artifact Density.
W.

15
500
10
400
�y
L
C
5
/
O
/ 1
300 R
0
;
CIO
},
200CI
-5
Cj
-10
d �.
100
-15
0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
130 135
North Coordinate
--�— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
P residual (P obs. - P predicted by % carbon, n=10)
rig.A ure 4J. lrrelatlon of xestaual Yttosphorous and Artitact Density.

In addition to determining the distributions of certain elements, pH values were also examined to
determine whether similar correlations with activity areas could be demonstrated. Figure 46 illustrates
the pH values plotted across the sample transect. As this figure demonstrates, there is a strong correlation
between pH and the north —central artifact concentration area. The south—central artifact density displays
a subtle correlation with pH. It is possible that the weaker pH signature in this portion of the site is due to
a slightly less intensive activity area compared to the more extensive north —central activity area.
-9- pH Value —a Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
500
7
450
6
400
5
350
y
300
4
_
250
A
x
3
200
.
w
a
2
150
Q
100
1
50
0
0
N70 N74 N80 N85 N86 N90 MOO N 101 N 110 Control
E97 Geochemical Transect
Figure 46. Correlation of pH Value and Artifact Density.
100

XI. SITE CHRONOLOGY, COMPONENTS, AND PATTERN ANALYSIS
Information on the chronology of the Spring site occupations was derived from a variety of sources,
including projectile point typology, ceramic vessel typology, and a radiocarbon- and OCR -dated feature.
This information is summarized below in order to determine the relative occupational intensity and
horizontal distribution of the various components represented, as well as to assess the vertical integrity of
the artifact distributions.
RADIOCARBON AND OXIDIZABLE CARBON RATIO DATES
One radiocarbon date was obtained from 31AN60. The date was derived from wood charcoal obtained
from Feature 7 and was 13C adjusted. The results of the radiocarbon analysis were unexpected. The date
from this feature fell in the Late Woodland or early historic period and has a corrected radiocarbon age of
350±60 years: 1600 A.D. (Beta-116314). The 13C adjusted and calibrated two -sigma (95% probability)
range for this date is A.D. 1435-1665 (Appendix 6).
The late date from Feature 7 contrasts with the diagnostic artifact recovered from this feature. One
Piscataway projectile point, which dates to the Early Woodland period, was recovered from the fill of this
feature. In addition, a Gypsy projectile point dating to the Early Woodland period was also found in the
same excavation unit as Feature 7 and was possibly associated with this feature. The only Late Woodland
component recognized at the Spring site is located in the northwest portion of the site away from Feature
7. Given the association of Piscataway and Gypsy projectile points with this feature, it is almost certain
that this feature dates to the Early Woodland period and not the Late Woodland or historic period. It is
likely that the wood charcoal obtained from the feature fill was either exposed to post -depositional
contamination or deposited after construction of the feature (e.g., burned root penetration).
In an attempt to corroborate the absolute date obtained from Feature 7, sediment obtained from the feature
fill was also submitted for OCR dating. This sample yielded an OCR date of 2555±76 years: 605 B.C.
r (ACT #3134), indicating an Early Woodland date for this feature. Since the relative association of the
1. Piscataway projectile point and the OCR date are consistent, it is concluded that the chronological
placement of this feature is indeed within the Early Woodland period.
CHRONOLOGY
There were 20 temporally diagnostic projectile points and nine ceramic sherds recovered from the Spring
site during the Phase I —III excavations. These artifacts provide important data on the intensity of
occupation and the horizontal distribution of the various components. Figure 47 illustrates the frequency
f of projectile points by temporal association.
M
101

Figure 47. Projectile Point Frequency by Cultural Period.
Components Represented at the Spring Site
Temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered from 31AN60 indicate that Native Americans inhabited the site
during most periods, ranging from the Early Archaic through the Late Woodland periods. The only
chronological periods not represented at the Spring site are the Paleoindian and Mississippian periods.
Some of the components represented at the site appear to have been relatively low in intensity, including
those from the Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland periods.
The first use of the site appears to have occurred during the Early Archaic period (ca. 8000-6000 B.C.).
This period is represented by the single occurrence of a Big Sandy projectile point. The near absence of
diagnostic artifacts from this time period suggests that the occupation was probably short-term and likely
the result of a resource foray. The next occupation at the site occurred during the Middle Archaic period
(ca. 6000-3000 B.C.). This period is represented at 31AN60 by Morrow Mountain and Guilford projectile
points. The overall low density of diagnostic artifacts from this period suggests that these occupations
were not intensive and that they were also likely short-term. Following the Morrow Mountain and
Guilford occupations during the Middle Archaic period, occupations at the site continued into the
subsequent Late Archaic period (ca. 3000-800 B.C.). Two Savannah River projectile points represent this
period. As with the occupations during the preceding Early and Middle Archaic periods, it appears that
the Late Archaic occupations were also the result of limited stays, perhaps as situational emergency or
task -specific campsites.
The Spring site witnessed intensive occupation during the latter part of the Late Archaic period and the
early part of the Early Woodland period (ca. 800 B.C.—A.D. 500). The intervening transition between the
Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods was represented by 12 projectile points of several different
styles: four Small Savannah River, two Gypsy, three Piscataway, one Bare Island, one unclassified
a. straight stem, and one unclassified stemmed types. Despite the occupation of the Spring site reaching its
zenith during this period, the variety of point types represented during this period suggests that the
occupations were probably not continuous. It is likely that the various components were the result of
separate occupations by several different cultural groups who appear to have occupied the area between
the end of the Late Archaic and beginning of the Early Woodland period. These occupations appear to
+� have been quite extensive and intensive and suggest that 31AN60 was recurrently occupied and perhaps
used as a seasonal camp on a semipermanent basis.
102
R

T
6n
As discussed above, one feature has been dated to the Early Woodland period, based on associated
artifacts and an OCR date. Feature 7 produced an OCR date of 605 B.C., along with a Piscataway
projectile point. In addition, a Gypsy projectile point dating to the Early Woodland period was also
recovered from the adjacent soil matrix in the vicinity of this feature.
Aside from the Early Woodland occupations representing the terminal expression of the Piedmont
Tradition of lithic manufacture, other occupations at the Spring site dating to this period are associated
with the Badin complex and the Triangular Tradition of lithic manufacture. Two Badin triangle projectile
points and two Badin Cord Marked ceramic sherds represent that occupation.. It appears that as the
intrusive Triangular Tradition became established in the area, occupations in the area became more
sporadic than in the previous period. The Middle Woodland period (ca. A.D. 500-1100) is likely
represented by three Yadkin Fabric Impressed ceramic sherds, although it is possible that they may date
to the Early Woodland period. No projectile points were associated with this period and the occupations
may have been short-term. The final occupation at the site is represented by a single Caraway projectile
point and may have occurred during the Late Woodland period, sometime between A.D. 1100-1500.
By the end of the cultural sequence in the area it appears that the Spring site was occupied less frequently
than the earlier periods. This pattern has been observed elsewhere in the region and is probably a
reflection of the overall shift in settlement systems during these periods. Beginning with the Middle
Woodland period, mobility appears to decrease considerably. As groups became more sedentary and
preferred to occupy the larger floodplain and stream settings on a permanent basis, upland locales
evidently were used primarily for resource extraction. Consequently, campsites in these setting tend to
represent situational emergency or task -specific campsites.
HORIZONTAL DISTRIBUTION OF ARTIFACTS AND COMPONENTS
The Phase III test unit excavations provided considerable information on artifact density and distribution
across 31AN60. Nearly all of the 1-x-1-m TUs produced prehistoric artifacts. Of the 62 TUs excavated
during the data recovery investigations, only two failed to yield artifacts. Both culturally sterile TUs were
located in Locus B. Artifact density in the data recovery excavation units varied from as low as two
artifacts per square meter in Locus B to as high as 467 artifacts per square meter in Locus A.
The artifact distribution is essentially continuous across the terrace in Locus A and is primarily confined
by topography. In Locus B, the artifacts are concentrated in the western portion of this locus at the base
of a toe slope. Due to the very low numbers of artifacts recovered from Locus B and the lack of
meaningful patterning, the remainder of the horizontal distribution discussion will be confined to those
artifacts recovered from Locus A.
Based on overall distribution patterns of artifacts recovered during test unit excavations, four major
spatially discrete artifact concentrations are visible. Those artifact clusters likely represent separate
occupations or possibly individual activity loci. Other smaller areas of artifact clusters were defined by
specific artifact or raw material type and may represent distinct activity areas or smaller, ephemeral
occupations.
In general, the two largest artifact concentrations were located in the central portion of the terrace and
appear to be related to the relatively flat topography of the landform. The largest and densest is located
near N90-105 E85-107 in the north —central portion of the locus (Figure 48). This area typically yielded
an average density of 160- 460 artifacts/square meter. Temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered from this
103

Figure 48. Frequency Distribution and Three -Dimensional Plot of Phase II and III Test Unit Artifacts.
104

portion of the site suggest occupations associated with the Early Archaic Late Archaic, and Early
Woodland components.
The second highest density of artifacts occurs in the south-central section of the site. This concentration
area roughly encompasses the portion of the site located between N72-88 E84-105 and appears to be
separated spatially from the concentration area located to the north (see Figure 48). This portion of the
site is also associated with the Late Archaic and Early Woodland components, as well as the Guilford
component dating to the Middle Archaic period. Artifact density in this area of the site generally was 80-
260 artifacts/square meter.
A third area of artifact concentration was located in the vicinity of N101-110 E65-80, in the northwest
corner of Locus A (see Figure 48). This portion of the site is likely associated with a Late Woodland
occupation and typically yielded an artifact density of 100-140 artifacts/square meter.
Finally, the fourth major concentration of artifacts in Locus A was situated in the eastern portion of the
site. This artifact concentration appears to be localized between N84-92 E113-118. The typical density
of artifacts in this portion of the site was 100-110 artifacts/square meter. Temporally diagnostic artifacts
recovered from the vicinity of this artifact concentration suggest that these deposits are associated with
Late Archaic or Early Woodland occupations; either with a Small Savannah River component to the west,
or the Gypsy or Piscataway components associated with Feature 7 immediately south (see Figure 21).
VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ARTIFACTS AND COMPONENTS
Figure 49 illustrates the vertical distribution of Phase III artifacts by strata. As expected, artifact density
in all classes decreased with depth. Excluding artifacts associated with features and other disturbances
(n=56, 0.7%), most artifacts were distributed within Stratum I (n=7556, 94.6%). The discontinuous
transitional A/B or E horizon (Stratum IA) contained a small number of artifacts (n=268, 3.3%). By the
time excavation was terminated in Stratum II, very few artifacts were recovered (n=109, 1.4%).
■ All Artifacts 0 Lithic Artifacts ® Prehistoric Ceramic 0 Historic Artifacts ® Fire Cracked Rock
120 --
100 - -
80 - — -
60 _—
40 —
20'i
0
Stratum I Stratum IA Stratum II Features/Disturbances
Figure 49. Vertical Distribution of Phase III Artifacts.
1u

Nearly all of the Archaic and Woodland projectile points and most of the Woodland sherds were
recovered from Stratum I. Only one diagnostic artifact, a Yadkin Fabric Impressed sherd, was recovered
from an intact stratigraphic horizon, and only one Piscataway projectile point was recovered from a
cultural feature. Because of the absence of temporally diagnostic artifacts below the plowzone, no
meaningful interpretations concerning discrete cultural strata can be made.
The only distinction regarding vertical distribution that can be made concerns the uneven distribution of
Stratum IA across the site. As discussed previously, Stratum IA is primarily located in the northern and
western portions of Locus A. Those portions of the site tended to yield slightly deeper cultural deposits,
because of the inclusion of this transitional soil horizon. Cultural deposits associated with Stratum IA
were especially deep in the northwestern portion of the Spring site, particularly between N105-110 E60-
80. It is uncertain why theallostratigraphic units are thicker along the northern terrace margin and
slightly upslope, but it is possible that these thicker deposits represent an accumulation of colluvial
deposits.
Artifacts distributed in the plowzone occurred across the entire portion of Locus A but were primarily
associated with the two main concentration areas identified at the site (Figure 50). Smaller clusters of
plowzone artifacts are also located in the eastern and northwestern portions of the site and appear to be
associated with the previously identified Late Archaic through Early Woodland period artifact densities
that occur in those areas. Cultural material recovered from Stratum IA was primarily associated with Late
Archaic and Early Woodland period occupations in the north —central portion of the site and the Late
Woodland occupation in the north—western portion of the site (Figure 51). To a lesser extent, Stratum IA
artifacts were also recovered from the southeastern corner of Locus A. Artifacts located in this portion of
the site occur in the vicinity of Feature 7 and appear to be associated with an Early Woodland component.
Artifacts recovered from Stratum II are primarily located in the north —central and south—central artifact
concentration areas and appear to be associated with the Late Archaic and Early Woodland activity areas
identified in those two portions of the site (Figure 52). A smaller, localized concentration of B-horizon
artifacts also occurs in the northwestern section of Locus A and is associated with a Late Woodland
component.
106
z

L.,
Figure 50. Frequency Distribution and Three -Dimensional Plot of Phase II and III Stratum I Artifacts.
107

80 70 so 90 100 110 120 130
Eost
CA
110
100
80
70 "-
50
J 10
U
0
•1
Figure 51 Frequency Distribution and Three -Dimensional Plot of Phase II and III Stratum IA Artifacts.
108

�Q
••
L 90
O
II
80
70 '-
so
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
East
a �
Figure 52. Frequency Distribution and Three -Dimensional Plot of Phase II and III Stratum II Artifacts.
109

XII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
TRC Ganrow Associates, Inc. has conducted an archaeological mitigation of the Spring Site (31AN60) at
the proposed Chambers Development of NC, Inc. Anson County Landfill. The field investigations were
completed December 8-19, 1997, January 12-16, 1998, and April 15-17, 1998 following the approval of
a work plan by Dr. Bill Oliver of the OSA and Mr. Richard Lewis of the COE.
Sixty-two square meters of the site were excavated during the data recovery investigations. These
excavations consisted of 1-x-1-m test units that were excavated as either individual units, paired units, or
block excavation units. The test units were distributed so as to evaluate apparent artifact concentrations,
cultural features, and other areas of interest identified as a result of the excavation of a systematic 10 m
grid during the Phase II testing investigations.
The results of the excavations and the presence of cultural features suggest that the Spring site was a
habitation site with short-term, and occasionally longer, more intensive occupations. The site was
apparently occupied on a seasonal, and perhaps recurrent, basis through several time periods. Diagnostic
projectile points dating from the Early Archaic through the Late Woodland periods were recovered.
Several diagnostic ceramic artifacts also indicate Early Woodland through Middle Woodland occupations.
Overall, the distribution of diagnostic artifacts at this site suggests that the most intensive utilization of
the site area occurred at the end of the Archaic period and the beginning of the Woodland period.
is i The primary lithic activity represented at the Spring site was the manufacture of formalized bifacial tools
made of rhyolite. Reduction of quartz cores also occurred to "a significant extent. These artifacts were
presumably used to produce less -formalized flake tools for expedient uses, such as cutting, hide scraping,
or wood working. Analyses of lithic material recovered from the Spring Site indicate that lithic
production at the site was oriented toward both a formal bifacial core technology and an expedient core
technology. The raw material assemblage was comprised mostly of locally obtainable rhyolite and
quartz, although small quantities of other raw materials were present in the lithic assemblage, which
suggests that a broad range of material types was incorporated into the economic system and lithic tool
kits.
+ = Data recovery investigations at the Spring site offered the potential to provide data relevant to a variety of
research issues. The research design focused on questions ranging from material culture and technology
of specific components to more broad reaching questions concerning settlement and subsistence patterns
to inter —regional relationships. A review and evaluation of the research design for the data recovery
investigations at 31AN60 is presented below.
f-
CHRONOLOGY
ILL One of the main objectives of the data recovery investigations was to establish a chronology for the
human occupation of 31AN60 by determining the time span of the occupations represented at the site.
r This was primarily accomplished through relative dating of temporally diagnostic artifacts, as a paucity of
cultural features provided little opportunity to obtain absolute dates. Probably the biggest disadvantage to
the lack of radiometric dating was that the projectile points had to be assigned to established temporal
frameworks, rather than assisting in the refinement of absolute chronology. The only exception is an
Early Woodland Piscataway projectile point that was associated with an OCR date of 605 B.C. Although
w
110
I

this date .is consistent for this point type, the OCR dating technique is relatively new and may not be
considered as conventional as standard radiocarbon dating.
The first use of the site occurred during the Early Archaic period and is represented by a Big Sandy
component. Two different occupations; a Morrow Mountain component and a Guilford component
represent the Middle Archaic period. These two components were apparently short-term and were
followed .by a Savannah River occupation during the Late Archaic period. The Savannah River
component was apparently a series of short-term occupations that may represent a situational emergency
camp or task -specific campsite.
The most intensive occupations at the Spring site occurred during the latter part of the Late Archaic and
the early part of the Early Woodland period. This transitional period was represented by a number of
different components evidenced by a variety of projectile point styles. The occupations dating to this
period are more .intensive than in the preceding periods and appear to reflect an increased use of the
uplands. This shift in settlement systems may also be related to the differing groups that appear to have
occupied the site during this period, and some that ultimately may have been intrusive into the area. It is
likely that the various components were the result of separate occupations by several different cultural
groups who appear to have occupied the area between the end of the Late Archaic and beginning of the
Early Woodland period. During this time the site probably was occupied recurrently and perhaps utilized
as a seasonal camp.
Following the transitional Archaic —Woodland period, the site appears to have been occupied less
intensively once again. Occupations during this period are associated with the Badin complex and are
1,,; represented by several triangular projectile points and cord marked ceramic sherds. Based on the low
frequency of artifacts attributable to the Early Woodland period, it is likely that the site was utilized as
small habitation campsites for resource extraction purposes. The Middle Woodland period is represented
by Yadkin series ceramics, although this period appears to be poorly represented at the site and it is
possible that the Yadkin ceramics are associated with the Early Woodland period occupations. Sporadic,
s short-term occupations of 31AN60 apparently continued into the Late Woodland period. This period is
represented by a Caraway component and, just as most of the previous occupations, appears to have been
low in intensity.
ENVIRONMENTAL RECONSTRUCTION AND RESOURCE AVAILABILITY
A second objective outlined in the research design was to obtain information about inhabitants'
relationship with the landscape. This research issue was primarily concerned with local and regional
paleoenvironmental data and human interaction with the immediate site environment. Intact deposits and
cultural features were expected to offer insight into the past environment so that it could be determined
which, if any, environmental factors were important to the site inhabitants. The near absence of cultural
features and other intact deposits that could be firmly dated restricted the number of research question that
could be answered. Some paleoenvironmental data, however, can be gleaned from the data recovery
investigations.
An Early Woodland feature identified at 31AN60 yielded a predominance of pine wood charcoal, along
�- with some oak. The mixture of pine and oak wood charcoal from the site suggests that the area in or
around the Spring site probably consisted of a mixed pine and oak forest. The mixture of these species
could indicate a forest in succession rather than a climax forest. Moreover, the presence of grass seeds in
Early Woodland contexts may suggest that the forest had an open canopy with sufficient sunlight to allow
for understory growth and herbaceous vegetation.
rw
111

Analyses of opal phytoliths recovered from the site reflected a mixed grass and non -grass ecology at
31AN60 during the Early Woodland period. The grasses were predominantly panicoid, which would
indicate that the local ecology during this period was a moist, warm and mild regime. The phytolith
assemblage indicates that 31AN60 was probably located in a grassy meadow with scrub growth and
thicket vegetation during the Early Woodland period. A heavy forest canopy was not indicated by the
phytoliths, but- rather the data tended to suggest that a small, localized clearing in the forest canopy
probably existed. Significant clearing of land for prehistoric agriculture is not indicated by the phytolith
assemblage.
An indication of a cleared ecological habitat corroborates the paleoethnobotanical data, which also came
to a similar conclusion. Analysis of paleoethnobotanical remains indicated that trees near the site were
primarily pine and oak. The mixture of these trees likely indicates a forest in succession, probably as a
result of burning. The presence at the site of carbonized grass seeds from an Early Woodland context also
indicates an open environment. The paleoethnobotanical data suggest that the forest had an open canopy
with sufficient sunlight to allow for understory growth and herbaceous vegetation. In summary, the
prehistoric impact on the local microenvironment appears to have been minimal, which is expected for
small, seasonal sites in upland locales.
During the historic period, the site appears to have been minimally impacted by agricultural activities.
The site was apparently cultivated and plowed for some time during the nineteenth or twentieth century.
Plowing does not seem to have been intensive, however, as revealed by the relatively thin plowzone
horizon. For the most part, plowing disturbed the vertical context of the cultural deposits. To some
extent the horizontal distribution of artifacts was also affected, but delineation of discrete artifact
i; concentrations demonstrated that this disruption was minimal. The inconsequential effect on lateral
displacement of artifacts. is presumably related to the unidirectional nature of the plowing at the site. The
retention of horizontally defined activity areas at 31AN60 is consistent with a number of other studies
showing that plowing does not appear to disturb significantly the horizontal relationship of artifacts
(Redman and Watson 1970; Roper 1976; Trubowitz 1978). In fact, the distribution of artifacts within
• plowzone contexts may provide reliable indicators of intact artifact deposits that lie directly beneath the
plowzone (Hoffman 1982).
After cultivation, the area was primarily used for pasturage until it became a pine plantation in the late
1960s. Bedding harrowing of the site associated with reforestation and establishment of the pine
plantation also appears to have been minimal. Small areas of the site were apparently affected by these
ground -disturbing activities; however, it was limited to areas along the planted pine rows. The
disturbance was limited to the upper portions of the already disturbed plowzone layer and was generally
manifested as small mounds that apparently represent the original furrows.
In order to have a clear understanding of prehistoric economic, technical, and social systems, it is first
necessary to have a comprehension of patterns of raw material procurement (Cobb and Webb 1994;
Ericson and Purdy 1984; Johnson 1981). Abundant beds of rhyolite are present throughout the Carolina
Slate Belt, and a number of rhyolite quarries and source areas have been identified in the region (Daniel
and Butler 1991, 1996; Hargrove 1989b; Mountjoy and Abbott 1982; Novick 1978). These source areas
were exploited extensively and appear to have represented a major raw material source for prehistoric
g groups in North Carolina since the Paleoindian period. Naturally occurring quartz and quartzite,
#' apparently derived from weathered conglomerates or other sedimentary rocks, also underlie the general
region. These materials are generally available as stream -deposited cobbles or as float material present in
the surficial soil layers.
Most of the artifacts represented in the artifact assemblage at 31AN60 consisted of rhyolite. This material
apparently derived from the extensive rhyolite beds in the Carolina Slate Belt and was the primary raw
112
Ow

material used by all of the components represented at the site. Quartz was also significantly represented
among the lithic artifacts recovered from the site. Numerous pieces of cortical debitage were observed in
the artifact collection, indicating that this material was obtained as secondary deposited quartz cobbles.
In addition to the abundance of rhyolite and quartz in the artifact collection, a variety of other raw
material types was also present. These mostly consisted of chert and chalcedony. These material types in
artifact assemblages are generally considerednon-local and are presumed to have been obtained outside
of the Slate Belt. Current research in the area suggests that these materials can be derived from small
outcrops located within the Slate Belt (Abbott and Harmon 1998). Similarly, Lautzenheiser et al. (1996)
have identified sources of these material types in Triassic deposits farther north in the North Carolina
Piedmont. The occurrences of chert and chalcedony in the region are apparently very localized, and the
limited outcroppings may not have provided a reliable source. Because the outcropping of these siliceous
raw materials is small and localized, it may have been encountered on a fortuitous basis. Once found, it
appears that these sources were fully exploited either in a single episode or over a relatively short period
of time (Abbott and Harmon 1998; Lautzenheiser et al. 1996). Although sources containing these
material types have yet to be identified in the more locally occurring Triassic Sub -Basin, it is
hypothesized that chert and chalcedony could have been derived from bedrock outcroppings, such as
those identified in similar geological settings described by Lautzenheiser et al. (1996).
MATERIAL CULTURE
With the exception of the few historic artifacts recovered during the data recovery investigations, artifacts
recovered from 31AN60 can be divided into four broad categories: lithic debitage, lithic tools, ceramics,
and fire -cracked rock. Rhyolite is the predominant material used at the site, followed by quartz. There
are no apparent differences in the use of rhyolite between time periods at this site. Since no diagnostic
a artifacts made of quartz were recovered, potential temporal variability in the use of this material could not
be determined. This raw material type occurs across most of the site, suggesting that it was used by most
of the components represented at the Spring site. The co -occurrence of rhyolite and quartz across time
periods has been observed elsewhere in the region, including numerous other sites located on the Anson
Landfill tract (Gunn and Wilson 1992; Guan 1992; P. Webb 1995) and in the Sandhills region to the south
of the project area (McMakin and Poplin 1997:29-30).
The presence of primary, secondary, and tertiary reduction flakes in the artifact assemblage indicates that
a full range of lithic reduction activities occurred at the site during the occupations. The overall low
frequency of primary and secondary flakes compared to tertiary flakes and the higher proportion of
thinning flakes over unspecialized flakes indicate that initial lithic reduction occurred at a quarry locale
3 and that cores and bifaces were brought to the site for further reduction and refinement. In general, the
predominance of thinning flakes over early -reduction —stage debitage is an expected trend in a formal
biface technology (Cobb and Webb 1994:209).
Research has shown that there are morphological differences between flakes produced by hard (i.e.,
r stone) and soft (i.e., antler, wood) hammer percussors (Crabtree 1982). The unmodified debitage
assemblage recovered from this site indicates that there is a 2.5:1 ratio of soft hammer flakes (thinning
flakes) to hard hammer flakes (unspecialized flakes). The preponderance of thinning flakes over
unspecialized flakes at this site reflects a more typical reduction trajectory that emphasizes bifacial core
technology. The pervasiveness of debitage associated with perishable soft hammer percussors may help
€ explain why relatively few hammerstones were recovered from the site despite the large amounts of
flaking debris. These data indicate that a distinction can be made concerning different percussors used
113

during direct percussion flaking, thus furthering our knowledge of reduction strategies that occurred at
31AN60.
Formal bifacial core technology is the dominant lithic reduction strategy represented at 31AN60. The
number of Stage I —III bifacial cores (n=50) greatly exceeds that of expedient cores (n=20), including
amorphous, bipolar, and core fragments. With the exception of one quartz and one chert specimen, all of
the bifaces are made of rhyolite. Conversely, 75% of expedient cores (n=15) are made of quartz, with
25% made from rhyolite (n=5). This is in direct contrast to the raw material selection for expedient flake
tools. Despite the prevalence of quartz expedient cores, expedient flake tools primarily are made of
rhyolite (n=11) rather than quartz (n=5). It is possible_ that, although quartz expedient cores are
predominant over those made on rhyolite, the number of quartz expedient tools is underrepresented in the
lithic assemblage because of the inherent difficulty of discerning use wear macroscopically on quartz.
Highly mobile groups with access to abundant lithic material, such as the rhyolite sources in the area, may
also produce expedient flake tools because of the absence of a need to conserve formal bifaces against
potential raw material limitations (Parry and Kelly 1987:300). In fact, Sassaman et al. (1990) suggest that
formal and expedient core technologies supplement each other, noting that simultaneous use of both
technologies has been demonstrated among various cultural groups in prehistoric eastern North America.
Assuming that bifacial cores and expedient core technologies are interdependent at 31AN60, it seems
probable that the expedient core technology represented at this site merely complemented the existing and
favored bifacial core technology.
Evidence for tool re -use in the artifact assemblage is limited, with only one point exhibiting evidence of
l resharpening. Since the majority of the fracture patterns represented among the projectile points are due
to impact, it is possible that resharpening was not considered necessary. It is suggested that rhyolite is so
readily available throughout the Slate Belts that curation and resharpening efforts may have been focused
mostly on raw material of limited availability, which has been shown to require a high level of
maintenance and systematic tool reuse (Gardner 1977; Goodyear 1979).
Examinations of fracture patterns on hafted and unhafted bifacial tools indicate a high proportion .of
transverse, hinge, and impact fractures. Data obtained from experimental functional analysis of bifacial
tools suggest that distal damage (i.e., impact fractures) is generally the result of usage as projectiles,
whereas mesial fractures (i.e., transverse fractures) were more common on bifaces used as knives (Ahler
K 1971:51-52; Odell and Cowan 1986:204). Johnson (1981) has concluded that transverse fractures on
unfinished bifaces are the results of production failures.
Bifacial tools were unquestionably an integral component of the lithic industries at the site and their
manufacture was complemented by expedient core technology, using locally available secondary cobble
deposits to augment the tool assemblage. Primary reduction and initial shaping of bifaces appear to have
been concentrated around the source areas, as there was little indication of such activities occurring at the
site. Generally, bifaces from quarry areas tend to represent early to middle stages of lithic reduction
sequence, whereas middle- to late -stage bifacial cores are commonly represented at workshops and
habitation sites (Cobb and Webb 1994).
r�
One possible reason for the variation in tool manufacturing strategies represented at 31AN60 is that
i = rhyolite biface preforms served as portable sources of tools in areas where the material is unavailable. In
contrast, areas that have an abundance of stream cobbles likely served to complement existing tool kits
and provided a means of expedient tool manufacture without having to rely on portable biface preforms.
'. It is also likely that biface preforms were included in the transported inventory of the site inhabitants to
replace tools as needed. This could have been necessary if redeposited cobble resources were not flexible
enough to accommodate situational contingencies (cf. Goodyear 1977), and because the systematic
1-,
114

procurement of adequate cores for the production of large tools was difficult and unpredictable. The use
of different materials and differing reduction strategies would, therefore, enhance existing tool inventory.
Employing differing manufacturing strategies based on situational contexts may have also been an
important component in efficient tool management strategies and prevented material shortfalls in the
transported lithic inventory between episodes of lithic procurement (Lothrop 1989:132). Despite the high
cost of manufacturing formal tools, transportation costs are considered low for formal tools. Parry and
Kelly (1987) indicate that using formal tools produced from standardized cores allows groups with high
residential mobility to transport sufficient lithic material from a source location to the area of anticipated
use. In essence, this allows the lithic material to become more portable. This portability becomes an
important factor among social groups with high mobility because of the necessity to avoid the potential
lack of lithic material in a particular area during regular group movements.
The importance of both formal biface and expedient core technologies appears to be emphasized in two
main parts of the site, the north -central and south-central portions of Locus A. In those areas, the
majority of the projectile point and other chipped stone tool distribution co -occurred with dense flake
concentrations. Procurement and reduction strategies were not identical for each of the various lithic
materials. Bifacial technology at the Spring site is predominantly associated with rhyolite, whereas the
expedient core technology (amorphous and bipolar cores) is generally associated with quartz.
Expedient stone . tool technologies appear to be correlated with a significant reduction in residential
mobility and tend to mark the transition to sedentary societies. It generally occurs late in prehistory,
f typically beginning between the Middle and Late Woodland periods of eastern North America, around A.
1A D. 500 (Parry and Kelly 1987). A decrease in the importance of standardized cores and formal biface
manufacturing and an increase in the production of expedient flake tools struck from unstandardized cores
reflect the shift to expedient tool technology. This concomitant shift did not completely replace one
system with. another, but rather was accompanied by an emphasis on expedient tools, with formal tools
` continuing to be used. Expedient core technology is often associated with two forms of core technology:
amorphous .cores and bipolar cores (Cobb and Webb 1994:212). Parry and Kelly (1987:301-302)
indicate that bipolar core technology may be related to reduced mobility and restricted access to lithic
sources. Others (Callahan 1981; Dickson 1977) view bipolar technology as the most efficient means for
removing flakes from cobble cores.
E . Aside from the lithic assemblage, a few ceramic sherds were also recovered from the site. This small
collection represents a minimum of three vessels. Due to the low assemblage variability, some of the
research questions about vessel diversity could not be answered. One of the represented vessels is
classified as Badin Cord Marked type and can be assigned to the Early Woodland period. The two
remaining vessel lots represent Yadkin Fabric Impressed vessel fragments and are related to either an
Early Woodland occupation or an early Middle Woodland occupation. The data recovery investigations
failed to yield evidence of early pottery manufacture, and there was no indication that soapstone vessels
predated the ceramic assemblage. Overall, the paucity of sherds from this site suggests that the Woodland
occupations were relatively short-term and may imply that habitations were primarily for task -specific
purposes, such as resource procurement, rather than long-term base camps, as were seen during the
preceding period.
SUBSISTENCE
The prehistoric inhabitants of the general area exploited two ecological niches for a variety of plant and
animal resources. These are comprised of upland forests and forested lowlands, including stream terraces
115

and floodplains. Due to local conditions that support higher water tables, such as springs located at the
base of ridges, diverse microzones located throughout the uplands tend to support more mesic
communities of plant species, such as oaks (Sassaman et al. 1990:52). For this reason, the location of
31AN60 within an upland interriverine environment situated at the base of a spring and at the confluence
of two streams suggests exploitation of mast forest resources associated with a broad spectrum (diffuse)
subsistence economy during the Archaic period (Cleland 1976). This mode of resource exploitation may
have also continued into the Woodland period. Research in the Great Bend area of the Yadkin River
valley indicates that there is no difference in subsistence activities among Woodland sites (Barnette
1978). This evidence suggests that hunting and gathering was an important mode of subsistence into the
latter part of the Woodland period, and that the inhabitants were not dependent upon cultigens, although
domesticated plants may have supplemented their diet.
In general, evidence for Archaic and Woodland subsistence systems is relatively scarce in the Piedmont.
This is presumably related to poor soil conditions that are not conducive to organic preservation.
Considering the lack of substantial subsistence data for the region, the Spring site appeared to offer an
opportunity to investigate subsistence practices during the Archaic and Woodland periods, and several
research issues were developed to address these concerns.
A primary goal that would allow us to address specific issues involving subsistence patterns concerned
the identification of cultural features. Intact features can contribute both quantitative and qualitative data
on subsistence practices and exploitation of seasonally- available resources. It was anticipated that the
identification of cultural features at the site would lead to the identification of nut fragments, seed
remains, wood charcoal fragments, and other items potentially related to specific food resources.
Unfortunately, only one cultural feature was identified at the site during the data recovery investigations.
This feature consisted of a small pit that dated to the Early Woodland period. Preservation of organic
remains was apparently poor, as very few were retrieved from this feature. The only potential food
resource recovered was an acorn shell. Three grass seeds were also recovered from this feature and may
indicate matting or pit lining. The absence of grass stems, however, suggests that the presence of grass
may not have been for technological purposes. Due to the isolated occurrence of the acorn fragment, it is
possible that it may not be related to subsistence practices, but is rather an incidental inclusion in the pit
fill.
The lack of nut shells and seeds of edible fruit indicates that 31AN60 was probably not occupied as a
vegetal- and nut -processing camp, although it may have functioned as camp for processing game
resources. Alternatively, the absence of the vegetal and nut items could indicate that the site was
occupied during the time of year when nuts and fruits were unavailable, such as winter or early spring.
COMPONENT SEASONALITY, FUNCTION, AND SETTLEMENT PLAN
Another avenue of research that guided the data recovery investigations was concerned with the changing
use of 31AN60 through prehistory. One of the main goals of this research topic was to determine the
seasonality of occupations, spatial organization and patterning of the site, and type of activities carried out
at the site based on assemblage variability.
Site types can be defined on the basis of a number of variables, including the types and kinds of lithic
t materials present; the diversity and frequency of artifacts represented; the number of components
represented; and the size and location of a site. Once a site type is identified, it may be possible to
describe a function associated with that site. The multicomponent occupations present at 31AN60
116

indicate that similar factors influenced site location during the Early Archaic —Late Woodland periods;
however, it cannot be certain if the site was used for similar reasons. A range of activities that likely
occurred at the Spring site is inferred on the basis of artifact assemblage, distribution patterns and
geochemical data. Probable activities include lithic tool production, processing of animal and plant
products, hide scraping, and woodworking.
Although plowing has disturbed the vertical placement of the artifacts at the site, it appears to have
minimally impacted the horizontal distribution of artifacts. Consequently, analysis of extensive spatial
data from Locus A found that there are at least four tightly clusteredareas of lithic material. This spatial
distinction indicates a systematic pattern of specialized activity areas, some of which appear to be related
to separate reduction episodes or specific functional activities associated with a limited portion of the site.
The presence of the larger specialized activity areas in the north —central and south—central portions of the
site may indicate that longer occupations are associated with the Late Archaic through Early Woodland
components represented in those portions of the site.
Geochemical signatures across the two largest activity areas indicate that phosphorous, barium, zinc,
calcium, and strontium serve as anthropogenic indicators associated with past human activity at the site.
High concentrations of these elements likely resulted from the discard and/or processing of plant and
animal debris during the Late Archaic —Early Woodland transitional period occupations in these two
portions of the site. Wood ash associated with fires may have also elevated concentrations of these
elements.
Sanders (1978) has indicated that sites occupied on a permanent, year-round basis generally allow for the
greatest deposition of phosphate. These sites tend to yield large amounts of organic debris that
accumulate in middens or other domestic activity areas.- Organic debris deposits at certain types of
seasonal or task -specific sites may be quite large, especially those associated with processing animal or
plant material. For instance, butchering sites tend to yield very high phosphate values because of the
large quantities of bone and other debris left behind at these sites. Sites occupied for gathering plant
material also tend to yield elevated phosphate levels because of the concentration of plant remains. In
general, lithic workshops typically. have low phosphate concentrations, unless bone or antler was being
processed or discarded at the site.
Tool types collected from the site allow some inferences about the activities that occurred during the
i . various occupations. Most of the artifacts collected from the site are associated with lithic manufacturing,
such as bifaces, cores, and a hammerstone. There was also a substantial number of artifacts related to
food procurement and processing activities, such as projectile points, scrapers, retouched and utilized
flakes, and ceramic sherds.
i The lithic artifact assemblage from 31AN60 consists primarily of debitage. The majority of the debitage
is constructed of rhyolite and is comprised mainly of tertiary specimens. The high ratio of noncortical
debitage to cortical debitage may suggest that the raw material introduced to the site was already
processed to some extent and that the majority of the lithic manufacturing taking place on site involved
late stage reduction and/or maintenance. Most of the unmodified debitage was recovered from the two
largest artifact density areas, both of which are associated with the Late Archaic —Early Woodland period
transitional period.
Aside from the numerous pieces of chipping debris, a number of exhausted and rejected early, middle,
and late stage bifaces were recovered from the site. Most of these displayed fracture patterns that
suggested they were broken and discarded during manufacturing. Whole and fragmentary bifaces
representing all stages of production are typically expected to be associated with residential camp sites
and recurrent logistical camps (Camilli 1983:202-204). It has been hypothesized that task -specific sites
117

are expected to contain fragmented late -stage bifaces because of the short duration of the occupation
(Camilli 1983; Pokotylo 1978:287-288). Finally, fragmentary early -stage bifaces are expected at
manufacturing sites since it is assumed that the complete specimens were removed from the site for use
and further reduction at a different location (Magne 1985:224). On the basis of the bifacial tool
assemblage from 31AN60, it appears that it is more closely associated with the hypothesized residential
campsite or recurrent logistical camp.
Although 31AN60 is not considered large, it does appear to have been the focus of relatively intensive
occupations. In general, smaller sites located in upland settings away from major tributaries are presumed
to represent short-term or ephemeral occupations. The intensive occupations represented at 31AN60 may
represent long-term or recurrent occupations resulting from its use as a seasonal base camp. The use of
this site as a seasonal base camp is consistent with Late Archaic period settlement models and the
utilization of uplands during the fall and winter months (Mouer 1990, 1991; Sassaman et al. 1990).
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND INTER -REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
One of the more important research objectives of the data recovery investigations was to provide data
concerning prehistoric usage of the Fall Zone and to determine how the prehistoric components
represented at 31AN60 relate to other sites nearby. Previous surveys and testing investigations elsewhere
on the Anson Landfill tract have revealed that every major time period from the Early Archaic through
the Late Woodland periods is represented in the area (Gunn and Wilson 1992; Guan 1992; P. Webb
1995). Many of the sites are multicomponent, and many have yielded evidence of occupations similar to
those represented at 31AN60. In addition to the sites recorded in the immediate area, Garrow and Watson
(1979) and Anderson (1992) have identified several sites at the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge that
also spanned broad temporal periods, ranging from the Early Archaic through the Late Woodland periods.
A general settlement pattern through time on the Anson Landfill tract indicates relatively consistent site
density from the Early Archaic (n=4) through the Late Archaic (n=4) periods, with a slight rise in density
occurring during the Middle Archaic period (n=5). Site density declines considerably in the Early
Woodland period (n=1), but rises during the Middle Woodland period (n=4). By the beginning of the
Late Woodland period (n=1) site density drops once again. The precipitous drops in site density may be a
result of significant decreases in population. Conversely, the difference could also be due to a shift in
settlement and subsistence patterns whereby fewer, but larger, sites were occupied across the Iandscape.
Another possible reason for the lack of Woodland sites recorded in the landfill tract could be a survey bias
toward upland landforms, since no floodplain settings were included in the original survey. In terms of
site settings, archaeological investigations at the Anson Landfill tract indicate that Early Archaic and
Middle Archaic sites are located on high knolls adjacent to water. During the Late Archaic and
Woodland periods, the focus of occupations apparently shifted to small stream confluences (Gunn and
Wilson 1992:84).
Extensive research conducted at the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge indicates that site density during
the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods is apparently very low (Anderson 1992; Garrow and Watson
1979). Unlike the pattern seen on the landfill tract, site density begins to rise during the Middle Archaic
period and the maximum utilization of the Refuge appears to have occurred during the Late Archaic
period. By the beginning of the Woodland period, site density declines sharply until it rises slightly
during the Late Woodland and Mississippian periods.
Overall, the settlement pattern reflected at the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge indicates an increase in
settlement and exploitation of the area from the Early Archaic through the Late Archaic periods. These
118

occupations occur primarily on terraces, particularly during the Late Archaic period. During the
Woodland period, settlements apparently shifted to floodplains, perhaps reflecting a change in subsistence
base. The Woodland sites appear to display a smaller range of functions than those that took place during
the Late Archaic period (Garrow and Watson 1979:23). This may indicate that the Woodland and
Mississippian sites are related to a horticulture/agriculture economic base.
The nearest recorded and investigated site to 31AN60 is 31AN83, which is located approximately 610 m
(2000 feet) to the north. This site is situated on a ridge and excavations revealed multicomponent
occupations ranging from the Middle Archaic and Late Archaic period (P. Webb 1995). The components
represented at this site are similar to those represented at 3,1AN60 and include Morrow Mountain and
Savannah River projectile points. The lithic assemblage is comprised primarily of rhyolite, with a small
amount of quartz also represented. Lithic artifacts collected from the site consisted primarily of debitage
and the variability of the lithic tool assemblage was low. Investigations at this site failed to yield
evidence of discrete occupation episodes or activity areas and it appears that this site is typical of Middle
Archaic and Late Archaic upland resource extraction sites found throughout the region.
A second site located in proximity to 31AN60 is 31AN62, which is situated just to the north of 31AN83.
This site occurs on a broad, gently sloping ridge top and consists of a large, multicomponent lithic scatter
that dates to the Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic periods. Components represented at
this site include Hardaway, Kirk, Guilford, and Savannah River projectile points. As with the other sites
recorded in the area, the lithic assemblage is comprised primarily of debitage, although there is a slightly
greater diversity of tools recovered from this site than that found at nearby 31AN83. Artifacts recovered
from site 31AN62 were mostly made of rhyolite and quartz, but there was a small amount of chert also
identified at this site. A hammerstone and core recovered from this site suggest that tool manufacturing
may have been one of the activities that occurred at 31AN83. No activity areas could be discerned during
the investigations and it appears that 31AN83 saw intermittent occupation or utilization throughout the
Archaic period. In many respects, this site is similar to those seen elsewhere in the area and appears to be
consistent with general Archaic period settlement models developed for the region.
A third site investigated and located nearby the project area is 31AN127. This site is located on a terrace
and is approximately 213 m (700 feet) southeast of the project area. Phase II testing investigations at this
site indicates that it was occupied during the Middle Woodland period, as represented by a Yadkin
projectile point. Rhyolite was the predominant raw material represented at this site, followed by quartz.
A very small amount of quartzite was also recovered from 31AN127. In addition to a preponderance of
debitage, several unfinished bifaces were also recovered. The majority of the debitage from this site
consisted of thinning flakes, which would suggest that tool manufacturing likely occurred at this site.
Clearly, the recorded and well -excavated sites in close proximity to 31AN60 contained occupations
dating to the same Archaic and Woodland periods as the Spring site. At all four sites rhyolite was the
most common raw material utilized, followed by quartz, suggesting that the inhabitants were consistent
with their raw material preference through at least the Late Archaic period. Site 31AN60, on the other
hand, included a broader range of raw material in the lithic tool kits, apparently supplementing the locally
available rhyolite and quartz. The use of rhyolite, quartz, and other forms of raw material in the area, and
the region in general, appears to have been primarily for technomic functions (Binford 1962) within low-
level networks or exchange systems. There is little evidence from the Spring site or the other sites
• excavated in the area to indicate its use in sociotechnic or ideotechnic functional contexts (Binford 1962)
within high-level formalized networks. It is expected that increased frequencies of non -local artifacts and
raw material or specialized contextual use of non -local raw materials would characterize these types of
systems (Custer 1985).
119
IF-
a.

The Middle Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland occupations represented at the four sites
excavated in the immediate area appear to represent short-term occupations. Such occupations are typical
of the low- to moderate -density lithic artifact scatters found throughout the southeastern Piedmont.
Although such sites can potentially yield important information, their potential to do so is largely related
to the presence of identifiable, spatially discrete components as well as undisturbed or minimally
disturbed features or deposits.
Several characteristics of 31AN60 are unlike those reported for the other sites investigated on the landfill
tract. The extensive reduction of bifacial and expedient cores at this site is apparently uncommon for the
other sites located nearby, although some lithic reduction likely occurred at all sites, particularly sites
31AN62 and 31AN127. Woodland ceramic sherds are also underrepresented among the sites excavated
in the vicinity. The most intensive use of the Spring site appears to be that of a long-term seasonal
habitation site during the latter part of the Late Archaic period and the early part of the Early Woodland
period, as indicated by the manufacture of various tool classes using both expedient and formal
technologies. Furthermore, Phase III investigations at the Spring site also discovered evidence.of discrete
artifact concentrations. Data indicate these loci represent either specific occupational episodes or
individual activity areas associated with contemporaneous components.
CONCLUSIONS
The data recovery investigations have provided information regarding the local manifestation of Archaic —
Woodland period cultures, which adds to the understanding of the regional dynamics during this
transitional period. Information regarding site integrity, temporal affiliation, spatial patterning, site
activities, raw material preferences, settlement patterns, and the placement of the Spring site within a
regional perspective was also collected during the intensive investigations.
Intersite patterns of settlement type, lithic material use, and site location have been compared with other
sites in the vicinity to provide a better understanding of prehistoric use of the area. In addition, an
intrasite comparison of the artifact assemblage and distribution patterns at 31AN60 allowed for an
evaluation of a number of research issues concerning the nature of diversity in the artifact assemblage
from this site.
The Phase III excavations at the Spring Site (31AN60) were conducted according to the specifications of
the data recovery plan approved by the OSA and the COE. These investigations have successfully
fulfilled the approved data recovery plan and have resulted in the mitigation of adverse impacts to the
significant archaeological resources present at this National Register —eligible site. Therefore, TRC
recommends that full and unconditional clearance be given for project construction to proceed.
120
F"
W_

REFERENCES CITED
Abbott, Lawrence E., Jr.
1996a Archaeological Testing of Five Upland Sites within the Uwharrie Ranger District, Uwharrie
National Forest: Intersite Analysis in the Carolina Slate Belt, Montgomery County, North
Carolina. Ms. on file, North Carolina Office of,State Archaeology, Raleigh.
1996b An Analysis of Lithic Raw Material Variability at the Three Hat Mountain Quarry, 31DV51,
Davidson County, North Carolina. Paper presented to the 53rd Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Birmingham, Alabama.
Abbott, Lawrence E., Jr., and Michael A. Harmon
1998 The Acquisition of Siliceous Raw Materials From the Carolina Slate Belt: Intentional or
Fortuitous Lithic Procurement Within the South Central Piedmont of North Carolina. Paper
presented to the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle,
Washington.
Ahler, Stanley A.
1971 Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological
Society Research Series No. 8., Columbia.
a:.:. Ahler, Stanley A., and R. C. Christensen
1983 A Pilot Study of Knife River Flint Procurement and Reduction at Site 32DU508, a Quarry
and Workshop Location in Dunn County, North Dakota. Contribution No. 186. Department of
Anthropology and Archaeology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
Anderson, David G.
1979 Excavation at Four Fall Line Sites: The Southeastern Columbia Beltway Project. Report
submitted to the South Carolina Department of Transportation. Commonwealth Associates, Inc.,
Jackson, Michigan.
t 1985 Middle Woodland Societies on the Lower Atlantic Slope: A View from Georgia and South
Carolina. Early Georgia 13:29-66.
y 1992 Archaeological Survey on the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, 1990-1991, Anson and
Richmond Counties, North Carolina. Interagency Archeological Services Division, National
Park Service, Atlanta. Submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Regional Office,
Atlanta.
1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In
Archaeology of the Mid -Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G.
Anderson, pp. 157-176. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Anderson, David G., Charles E. Cantley, and A. Lee Novick
1982 The Mattassee Lake Sites: Archaeological Investigations along the Lower Santee River in the
Coastal Plain of South Carolina. National Park Service, Archeological Services Branch, Special
Publications. Atlanta.
t✓
tom,
121
r--

Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Bain, G. L., and B. W. Harvey
1977 Field Guide to the Geology of the Durham Triassic Basin. Carolina Geological Society Field
Trip Guidebook, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Barnette, Karen L.
1978 Woodland Subsistence -Settlement Patterns in the Great Bend Area, Yadkin River Valley,
North Carolina. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wake Forest University.
Binford, Lewis R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225.
1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of
Anthropological Research 35(3):255-273.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.
Blanton, Dennis B., Christopher T. Espenshade, and Paul E. Brockington Jr.
1986 An Archaeological Study of 38SU83: A Yadkin Phase Site in the Upper Coastal Plain of
South Carolina. Garrow & Associates, Atlanta.
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 Albert C. Goodyear
III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 53-71. Anthropology Studies 9.Occasional Papers of the South
Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Braun, E. Lucy
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.
Brooks, Michael J., P. A. Stone, D. J. Colquhoun, and J. G. Brown
1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period
Subsistence —Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. In Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C.
Goodyear III and Glen. T. Hanson, pp. 91-100. Anthropology Studies 9. Occasional Papers of
the South Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
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.
Butler, J. Robert, and Paul Ragland
1969 Petrology and Chemistry of Meta -Igneous Rocks in the Albemarle Area, North Carolina Slate
Belt. American Journal of Science 267:700-726.
122

Cabak, Melanie A., Kenneth E. Sassaman, and J. Christopher Gillam
1996 Distributional Archaeology in the Aiken Plateau. Savannah River Archaeological Research
Papers 8, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina.
Callahan, Errett
1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 7:1-180.
Callahan, Kevin
1981 Quartz Technology within the Narragansett Basin Region: A Challenge in Lithic Analysis.
In Quartz Technology in Prehistoric New England, edited by Russell Barber, pp. 77-84. Institute
for Conservation Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Cambron, James W., and David C. Hulse
1960 An Excavation on the Quad Site. Tennessee Archaeologist 16(1):14-26.
Camilli, E. L.
1983 Site Occupational History and Lithic Assemblage Structure: An Example from Southeastern
Utah. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Cantley, Charles E., and Leslie Raymer
1990 Data Recovery at Site 31AM278: A Late Woodland Field Campsite Located in Alamance
County, North Carolina. New South Associates Technical Report 21.
Chafin, Linda G.
1992 Wetlands Delineation and Protected Species Survey of a Proposed Regional Landfill Site,
Anson County, North Carolina. TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to Chambers
Development of North Carolina, Inc., Smyrna, Georgia.
Claflin, William H., Jr.
1931 The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology 14(1).
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Michigan. Submitted to U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
Cleland, Charles
1976 The Focal -Diffuse Model: An Evolutionary Perspective on the Prehistoric Cultural
Adaptations of the Eastern United States. Mid -Continental Journal of Archaeology 1 (1):39-59.
Cobb, Charles R., and Paul A. Webb
1994 A Source Area Perspective on Expedient and Formal Core Technologies. North American
Archaeologist 15(3):197-219.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5). Philadelphia.
123

U
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.
Cook, Thomas G.
1976 Broadpoint: Culture, Phase, Horizon, Tradition, or Knife? Journal of Anthropological
Research 32(4):337-357.
Cooper, Peter P.
1976a Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources Survey of Anson County 201 Facilities
Plan Sites and Interceptor Lines, Anson County, North Carolina. Museum of Anthropology,
Catawba College, Salisbury. Ms. on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
1976b Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources Survey of Proposed Impoundment Areas
I and 2, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, Ansonville, North Carolina. Museum of
Anthropology, Catawba College, Salisbury. Ms. on file, Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge,
Anson County, North Carolina.
Crabtree, Don W.
1982 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho Museum of Natural History,
No. 28. Second Edition.
Custer, Jay F.
1984a Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology: An Ecological Approach. University of Delaware Press,
Newark.
1984b A Contextual Analysis of Woodland I Artifacts Manufactured from Non -Local Materials on
the Delmarva Peninsula: Implications for Patterns of Trade and Exchange. In Prehistoric Lithic
Exchange Systems in the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 57-83. University
of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research Monograph No. 3.
Custer, Jay F., and G. Mellin
1986 Analysis of `Broadspears" from Delaware: Form, Function, and Distribution. Bulletin of the
Archaeological Society of Delaware 22:1-29.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
1993 Uwharrie Rhyolite and Early Archaic Settlement Range in the Carolina Piedmont. Paper
presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Raleigh.
1994 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation in Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and J. Robert Butler
1991 Rhyolite Sources in the Carolina Slate Belt, Central North Carolina. Current Research in the
Pleistocene 8:64-66.
1996 An Archaeological Survey and Petrographic Description of Rhyolite Sources in the Uwharrie
Mountains, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies 45:1-37.
124

Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr., and R. P. Stephen Davis
1996 The Projectile Point Classification Project. A Classification of Projectile Points in Existing
Archaeological Collections from North Carolina (Phase 11). Technical Report No. 26. Research
Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Davis, John
1987 Early Woodland of the North Carolina Piedmont: New Information from the E. Davis Site.
Paper presented at the 44th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charleston, South
Carolina.
Delcourt, Paul A.
1978 Quaternary Vegetational History of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1983 Late Quaternary Vegetational Dynamics and Community Stability Reconsidered.
Quaternary Research 19:265-271.
Dickson, F. P.
1977 Quartz Flaking. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 97-103.
Prehistory Material Culture Series No. 12, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra,
Australia.
Dockall, John E.
1997 Wear Traces and Projectile Impact: A Review of the Experimental and Archaeological
Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 24:321-331.
Dunn, Robert A.
1984 Form and Function of the Perkiomen Broadpoint. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 54(3-4):11-
18.
Eastman, Jane M.
1994a The North Carolina Radiocarbon Date Study (Part 1). Southern Indian Studies 42.
1994b The North Carolina Radiocarbon Date Study (Part 2). Southern Indian Studies 43.
Eidt, Robert C.
1977 Detection and Examination of Anthrosols by Phosphate Analysis. Science 197:1327-1333.
Ericson, Jonathon E.
1984 Toward the Analysis of Lithic Production Systems. In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic
Production, edited by Jonathon E. Ericson and Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 1-10. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Ericson, Jonathon E., and Barbara A. Purdy (editors)
1984 Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fenneman, Nevin M.
1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
�w
I
125

Frink, Douglas
1992 The Chemical Variability of Carbonized Organic Matter through Time. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 20:67-79.
1994 The Oxidizable Carbon Ration (OCR): A Proposed Solution to Some of the Problems
Encountered with Radiocarbon Data. North American Archaeologist 15:17-19.
Gardner, William M.
1977 Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex and Its Implications for Eastern North American Prehistory.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 288:257-263.
Garrow, Patrick H., and G. Michael Watson
1979 A Cultural Resource Investigation of the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, Anson and
Richmond Counties, North Carolina. Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. Submitted to the
National Park Service, Atlanta.
Gleach, Frederic W.
1987 A Compilation of Radiocarbon Dates with Applicability to Central Virginia. Archaeological
Society of Virginia Quarterly Bulletin 40(4):180-200.
Goldsmith, Richard, Daniel J. Milton, and J. Wright Horton, Jr.
1989 Geology of the Charlotte 1°x2° Quadrangle. In Mineral Resources of the Charlotte I °x2°
Quadrangle, North Carolina and South Carolina, edited by Jacob E. Gair, pp. 7-15. United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1462. United States Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleo-Indian Groups of
North America. University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology
Research Manuscript Series No. 156, Columbia.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.
Graham, R. W., and E. L. Lundelius, Jr.
1984 Coevolutionary Disequilibrium and Pleistocene Extinctions. In Quaternary Extinctions: A
Prehistoric Revolution, edited by P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, pp. 223-249. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Gremillion, Kristen Johnson
1987 Plant Remains from the Fredricks, Wall, and Mitchum Sites. In The Siouan Project: Seasons
1 and II, edited by Roy S. Dickens, H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, pp. 259-278.
Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Monograph Series No. 1.
Griffin, John W., and John Reeves
1968 A Stratified Site at Peaks of Otter, Blue Ridge Parkway. Archaeological Society of Virginia
Quarterly Bulletin 23:2.
Griffin, V. S.
1974 Analysis of the Piedmont in Northwest South Carolina. Geological Society ofAmerica
Bulletin 85:1123-1138.
126

►j
31 AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Residual Copper
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
—y— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter j
—♦ - Cu residual (C obs. - Cu predicted by % clay) J
Figure 8. Residual copper transect.
500
400
100

31AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Residual Phosphorus
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
500
400
a�
y
rd
�r
300
COD
cs'
a�
a
200
U
s.
100
-15 l —° 0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
�— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
�- P residual (P obs. - P predicted by % carbon, n=10)
Figure 9. Residual phosphorus (based on carbon %) transect.

E
0
31 AN60 Geochen&al Transect
of Phnznhnrnc
100
90
80
50
500
400
a�
a�
300 L
0
tr
W
1.
W
a
200
u
w
100
40—��;r �,�- 0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
—y— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
—�— P (PPm)
Figure 10. Phosphorus transect.
M

15
10
L4
PI
-10
31AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Residual Phosphorus
- 500
400
100
-15 i I I I I I .- w- 0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
4 P residual (P obs.-P predicted by %clay and carbon, n=10)
gyp— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
Figure 11. Residual phosphorus (based on clay % and carbon %) transect.
R
Zi

Guan, Gary X.
1992 Phase 11 Testing of Five Sites at the Anson County Regional Landfill Site, Anson County,
North Carolina. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Raleigh. Submitted to Chambers of North Carolina,
Smyrna, Georgia.
Gunn, Joel D.
1994 Introduction: A Perspective from the Humanities —Science Boundary. In Global Climate —
Human Life: Physical Contexts of Historic Landscapes, edited by Joel D. Gunn. Human
Ecology 22:1-22.
Gunn, Joel D., and Kathy J. Wilson
1992 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the Anson County Regional Landfill, Anson County,
North Carolina. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Raleigh. Submitted to Chambers of North Carolina,
Smyrna, Georgia.
1993 Archaeological Data Recovery Investigations at Sites 38CT54 and 38CT58 Along the S.C.
151 Jefferson Bypass, Chesterfield County, South Carolina. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Raleigh.
Submitted to South Carolina Department of Highways and Transportation.
Hall, Wesley K., and Tucker Littleton
1979 Archaeological Investigation of the Replacement of Bridge No. 109-65-40 on NC 109 over
the Pee Dee River North of Wadesboro. Ms. on file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
.4 Hally, David J.
1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American
Antiquity 51:267-295.
Hargrove, Thomas H.
1989a An Archaeological Survey of a Proposed Quarry Site, Pee Dee Vicinity, Anson County, North
Carolina. Archaeological Research Consultants,_ Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. Ms. on file, North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology.
1989b An Archaeological Survey in Morrow Mountain State Park, Stanly County, North Carolina.
Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. Ms. on file, North Carolina
Office of State Archaeology.
Hayden, Brian (editor)
1979 Lithic Use Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York.
Henry, D. O., C. V. Haynes, and B. Bradley
1976 Quantitative Variations in Flaked Stone Debitage. Plains Anthropologist 21:57-61.
Herbert, Joseph M., and Mark A. Mathis
1996 An Appraisal and Re -Evaluation of the Prehistoric Pottery Sequence of Southern Coastal
North Carolina. In Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observations from the March 1995 Ceramic
Workshop at Hobcaw Barony, assembled and edited by David G. Anderson, assisted by John S.
Cable, Niels Taylor, and Christopher Judge, pp. 136-189. Council of South Carolina
Professional Archaeologists.
127

L
ILA
Hill, Michael
1990 Guide to North Carolina Highway Historical Markers. North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Hoffman, Curtiss
1982 Plow Zones and Predictability: Sesquinary Context in New England Prehistoric Sites. North
American Archaeologist 3(4):287-309.
Holm, Mary Ann
1987 Faunal Remains from the Wall and Fredricks Sites. In The Siouan Project: Seasons 1 and II,
edited by Roy S. Dickens, H. Trawick Ward, and R. P. Stephen Davis, pp. 237-258. Research
Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Monograph Series No. 1.
Johnson,Jay K.
1981 Yellow Creek Archaeological Project, Volume 2. Archaeological Papers of the Center for
Archaeological Research 2. University of Mississippi, Oxford.
1986 Amorphous Core Technologies in the Mid -South. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology
11:135-151.
Joy, Deborah
1994 Archaeological Study at Site 31AN165 for the Replacement of Bridge 8 over Brown Creek,
TIP B-2506, in the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, Anson County, North Carolina. On file at
Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
Keeley, Lawrence H.
1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kelly, Robert L., and Lawrence C. Todd
1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity
53:231-244.
Kinsey, W. Fred, III
1972 Archeology of the Upper Delaware Valley: A Study of the Cultural Chronology of the Tocks
Island Reservoir. Anthropological Series No. 2. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission, Harrisburg.
Kneberg, Madeline-
1956 Some Important Projectile Point Types Found in the Tennessee Area. Tennessee
Archaeologist 12(1):17-28.
128

a-
SF�
Lautzenheiser, Loretta, Jane M. Eastman, and Mary Ann Holm
1996 Identification of a Piedmont Chert Quarry. Southern Indian Studies 45:38-56.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald
1991 Late Archaic/Early Woodland Structures from the Mill Branch Sites, Warren County,
Georgia. Early Georgia 19(2):34-46.
Lefler, Hugh T. (editor)
1967 A New Voyage to North Carolina (by John Lawson [17091). University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Lewis, R. J., J. E. Foss, M. W. Moms, M. E. Timpson, and C. A. Stiles
1992 Trace Element Analysis in Pedo-Archaeology Studies. In Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Pedo-Archaeology, edited by J. E. Foss, M. E. Timpson, and M. W.
Morris, pp. 81-88. University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, Knoxville.
Lothrop, Jonathan C.
1989 The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology at the Potts Site. In Eastern Paleoindian
Lithic Resource Use, edited by Christopher J. Ellis and Jonathan C. Lothrop, pp. 99-137.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
McElrath, D. L.
1986 The McLean Site. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
McLearen, Douglas C.
1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N.
Hodges, pp. 89-137. Special Publication 23. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Courtland,
Virginia.
McMakin, Todd, and Eric C. Poplin
1997 Settlement Organization and Resource Use in the Sandhills: A Summary of Investigations.
South Carolina Antiquities 29(1-2):17-41.
Magne, Martin P. R.
1985 Lithic:s and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British
Columbia. Mercury Series No. 133. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.
Mathis, Mark A (assembler)
1979 North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction and Application to Three
Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties. North Carolina Archaeological
Council Publication 11.
Medley, Mary L.
1976 History of Anson County, North Carolina. Anson County Historical Society, Wadesboro,
North Carolina.
Meltzer, David J., and J. I. Mead
1983 The Timing of Late Pleistocene Mammalian Extinctions in North America. Quaternary
Research 19:130-135.
129

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.
Millis, Tracy L., Daniel F. Cassedy, Heather Millis, Paul Webb, and Nancy Asch-Sidell
1995 Iroquois Gas Transmission System: Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery Report, Volume
3, The Connecticut Sites. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Atlanta. Submitted to Iroquois Gas
Transmission System, L.P., Shelton, Connecticut.
Morris, Michael W., John E. Foss, John T. Ammons, and Walter E. Klippel'
1992 The Use of Soil Morphology in Archaeology: A Technique for Discriminating the
Anthropogenic Influence of Buried Soils. In Proceedings of the First International Conference
on Pedo—Archaeology, edited by J. E. Foss, M. E. Timpson, and M. W. Morris, pp. 89-106.
University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, Knoxville.
Morrow, T. A.
1984 Iowa Projectile Points. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Mouer, L. Daniel
1990 The Archaic to Woodland Transition in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain Sections of the
James River Valley, Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Pittsburgh.
1991 Formative Transition in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia:
A Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 1-88. Special
Publication 23. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Courtland, Virginia.
Mountjoy, Joseph B., and Lawrence E. Abbott, Jr.
1982 An Archaic Quarry and Stone Knapping Location on Three Hat Mountain, North Carolina.
In Collected Papers on the Archaeology of North Carolina, edited by Joseph B. Mountjoy, pp.
57-79. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 19, Raleigh.
Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell)
1992 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Munsell Color, MacBeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments
Corporation, Baltimore.
Newcomer, M. H.
1971 Some Quantitative Experiments in Hand -Axe Manufacture. World Archaeology 3(1):85-94.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Geological Survey, Raleigh.
Novick, Lee
1978 Prehistoric Lithic Material Sources and Types in South Carolina: A Preliminary Statement.
South Carolina Antiquities 10(1):422-437.
Odell, George H., and F. Cowan
1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology
13(2):195-212.
..Y
130

Odell, George H., and F. Odell-Vereecken
1980 Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use —Wear Assessments by "Blind Test": The Low Power
Approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:87-120.
Oliver, Billy
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point Type. M.A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1983 Refinement of the North Carolina Chronological Sequences. In Piedmont Archaeology,
edited by J. Mark Wittkofski and Lyle Browning, pp_ 125-147. Archaeological Society of
Virginia, Special Publication No. 10.
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 Press, Tuscaloosa.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Padgett, Thomas J.
1986a Archaeological Study Bridge No. 27 on NC145 over Jones Creek, Anson County, Project B-
1026. Ms. on file at Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
1986b Archaeological Study Bridge No. 267 on SR1621 over Rocky River, Anson—Stanly Counties,
Project B-1023. Ms. on file at Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Parry, William J., and Andrew L. Christenson
1988 Introduction and Background. In Prehistoric Stone Technology on Northern Black Mesa,
Arizona, by William J. Parry and Andrew L. Christenson, pp. 1-20. Center for Archaeological
Investigations Occasional Paper No. 12, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly
1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited
by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Patterson, Leland W.
1982 Replication and Classification of Large Size Lithic Debitage. Lithic Technology 11(3):50-58.
1990 Characteristics of Bifacial-Reduction Flake -Size Distribution. American Antiquity
55(3):550--558.
Patterson, Leland W., and J. B. Sollberger
1978 Replication and Classification of Small Size Lithic Debitage. Plains Anthropologist 23:103-
112.
Phelps, David S.
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In
The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis
and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 1-49. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
131

Pokotylo, D. L.
1978 Lithic Technology and Settlement Patterns in Upper Hate Creek Valley, B. C. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver.
Potter, Stephen R.
1982 An Analysis of Chicacoan Settlement Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Proudfoot, B.
1976 The Analysis and Interpretation of Soil Phosphorous in Archaeological Contexts. In
Geoarchaeology, Earth Science, and the Past, edited by D. A. Davidson and M. L. Shackley, pp.
93-113. Westview Press, Boulder.
Pullins, Stevan
1996 A Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44LE230, Proposed Route 58 Improvements
Project, Lee County Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Department of Anthropology, The College of William and Mary. Submitted to Blauvelt
Engineers, P.C., Richmond, Virginia.
Pullins, Stevan C., and Dennis B. Blanton
1994 A Phase H Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44SN225, Proposed Route 689 Improvement
Project, Southhampton County, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research,
Department of Anthropology, The College of William and Mary. Submitted to Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Purdy, Barbara A.
.1975 Fractures for the Archaeologist. In Lithic Technology: Making and using Stone Tools, edited
by Early Swanson, pp. 133-141. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's
Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological
Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Redman, Charles L., and Patty Jo Watson
1970 Systematic Intensive Surface Collection. American Antiquity 35(3):279-291.
Rice, Prudence
1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Riley, Lynn, David C. Bachman, Glen Mellin, JoAnn E. Jamison, Barbara Hsiao Silber, Jay F. Custer,'
and David J. Grettler
1994 Phase 11 Archaeological Excavation of All Prehistoric Sites in the Early Action Segment of
the Delaware Route 1 Corridor, New Castle and Kent Counties, Delaware. Delaware
�- Department of Transportation Archaeological Series No. 101.
Ritchie, William A.
1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and
Science Service, Albany.
132

Rogers, Rhea
1989 The E. Davis Site and the Origins of the Woodland in Northwestern North Carolina. Paper
presented at the 46th Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa, Florida.
Roper, Donna C.
1976 Lateral Displacement of Artifacts Due to Plowing. American Antiquity 41(3):373-375.
Sanders, Lois E.
1978 Physical and Cultural Variables Affecting Phosphate Deposition and Preservation at
Archaeological Sites. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993a Early Woodland Settlement in the Aiken Plateau. Savannah River Archaeological Research
Papers 3, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
1993b Early Pottery in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson
1994 Middle and Late Archaic Archaeological Records of South Carolina: A Synthesis for
Research and Resource Management. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 6.
Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Michael J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Hanson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley. Savannah River
Archaeological Research Papers 1. Occasional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological
Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of
South Carolina, Columbia.
Sassaman, Kenneth &, Glen T. Hanson, and Tommy Charles
1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter -Gatherer Range in the Savannah
River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7:79-94.
Satterfield, Cynthia, and Deborah Joy
1993 Archaeological Study Report Replacement of Bridge 169 on SR1428 over Brown Creek,
Anson County, North Carolina. On file at Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Secretary of the Interior
1983 Archeological and Historic Preservation; Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines,
Part IV. National Park Service, Federal Register 48(190):44742-44819.
Semenov, S. A.
1964 Prehistoric Technology. Adams and Dart, Bath.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
1937 Conservation Services Management Plan for Anson County. Ms. on file, Anson County Soil
Conservation Service, Wadesboro, North Carolina.
133

South, Stanley
1959 A Study of the Prehistory of the Roanoke Rapids Basin. M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Stahle, David W., and Malcolm K. Cleveland
1996 Large -Scale Climatic Influences on Bald Cypress Tree Growth Across the Southeastern
United States. In Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanisms of the Last 2000 Years, edited by
Philip D. Jones, Raymond S. Bradley, and Jean Jouzel, pp. 125-140. Springer, in cooperation
with NATO Scientific Affairs Division, Berlin, Germany.
Stahle, David W., Malcolm K. Cleveland, and John G. Hehr
1988 North Carolina Climate Changes Reconstructed from Tree Rings: A.D. 372 to 1985. Science
240:1517-1519. .
Stanyard, William
1997 The Big Haynes Reservoir Archaeological Project. A Perspective on the Native American
History of North—Central Georgia Between 8000 B.C. and A.D. 1838, vol. I. Garrow and
Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Submitted to Conyers -Rockdale -Big Haynes Impoundment
Authority, Conyers, Georgia.
Stephenson, Robert L.
1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological
Papers No. 20, University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
Stevens, J. Sanderson
1991 A Story of Plants, Fire, and People: The Paleoecology and Subsistence of the Late Archaic
and Early Woodland in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A
Synthesis, edited by Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, pp. 185-220. Special
Publication 23. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Courtland, Virginia.
Stewart, R. Michael
1981 Prehistoric Settlement/Subsistence Patterns and the Testing of Predictive Site Location
Models in the Great Valley of Maryland. Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America,
i . Washington, D.C.
1984a Archaeologically Significant Characteristics of Maryland and Pennsylvania MetarhyoIites. In
Prehistoric Lithic Exchange Systems in the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp.
2-13. University of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research Monograph No. 3.
1984b South Mountain (Meta)Rhyolite: A Perspective on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in the
Middle Atlantic Region. In Prehistoric Lithic Exchange Systems in the Middle Atlantic Region,
edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 14-44. University of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research
Monograph No. 3.
Stuckey, Jasper Leonidas
1965 North Carolina: Its Geology and Mineral Resources. Department of Conservation and
L Development, Raleigh.
134
W.

l_a
Stuckey, Jasper L., and W. G. Steel
1953 Geology and Mineral Resources of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of
Conservation and Development, Division of Mineral Resources. Educational Series No. 3.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Stuiver, M., A. Long, R. Kra, and J. Devine
1993 Calibration-1993. Radiocarbon 35(1).
Talma, A. S., Vogel, J. C.
1993 A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates, Radiocarbon 35(2):317-322.
Trimble, Stanley W.
1974 Man -Induced Soil Erosion on the Southern Piedmont, 1700-1970. Soil Conservation Society
of America.
Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. Odell, B Voytek, and A. Whitman
1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis.
Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171-196.
Trubowitz, Neal L.
1978 The Persistence of Settlement Pattern in a Cultivated Field. In Essays in Northeastern
Anthropology In Memory of Marian E. White, edited by William E. Engelbrecht and Donald K.
Grayson, pp. 41-66. Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 5.
Truncer, James
1988 Perkiomen Points: A Functional Analysis of a Terminal Archaic Point Type in the Middle
Atlantic Region. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 4:61-70.
Vanatta, E. S., and F. N. McDowell
1917 Soil Survey of Anson County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Vogel, J. C., A. Fuls, E. Visser, and B. Becker
1993 Pretoria Calibration Curve for Short Lived Samples. Radiocarbon 35(1):73-86.
Ward, H. Henry, and Keith R. Doms
1984 Ironstone Exchange Systems of the Upper Delmarva Peninsula. In Prehistoric Lithic
Exchange Systems in the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 45-56. University
of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research Monograph No. 3.
Ward, Trawick H.
1977 The Archaeological Survey of the Old Sneedsboro Power Plant Complex. Research
Laboratories of Anthropology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Submitted to
Carolina Power and Lighting, Raleigh.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
. _ Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53-80. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
135

Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1993 Indian Communities on the Carolina Piedmont, A.D. 1000 to 1700. Monograph No. 2,
Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
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.
Webb, Paul A.
1995 Phase 11 Testing of Archaeological Sites 31AN62 and 31AN83 at the Anson County Regional
Landfill Site, Anson County, North Carolina. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Raleigh. Submitted to
Chambers Development Company, Smyrna, Georgia.
Webb, Robert S.
1995 Archeological Data Recovery at Site 31MK683 Ballantyne Residential Golf Community
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Ms. on file at Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh.
Wharton, Charles H.
1977 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Office of
Planning and Research, Resource Planning Section, Atlanta.
Wheeler, W., and D. Textoris
1978 Triassic Limestone and Chert of Playa Origin in North Carolina. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 48(3):765-776.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1965 Palynology and Pleistocene Phytogeography of the Unglaciated Eastern United States. In
The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H. E. Wright, Jr., and David G. Frey, pp. 237-
248. Yale University Press, New Haven.
1973 Late -Wisconsin Vegetation Changes in Unglaciated North America. Quaternary Research
3:621-631.
Woodall, J. Ned
1989 The Upper Yadkin River Valley, A.D. 1200-1600. Paper presented at the 46th Annual
Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa, Florida.
1996 The Northwest North Carolina Piedmont: Possible Effects of the A.D. 536 Event. Paper
presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Birmingham, Alabama.
Wright, H. E., Jr.
1981 Vegetation East of the Rocky Mountains 18,000 Years Ago. Quaternary Research 15:113-
125.
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.
136
niw

APPENDIX 1: OSA CORRESPONDENCE

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 21, 1995
Daniel F. Cassedy, Ph.D.
Branch Manager/Assistant Vice President
Garrow and Associates, Inc.
417 North Boylan Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Archaeological studies for Anson County
Regional Landfill, ER 92-8226, ER 95-9113
Dear .Mr. Cassedy:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of May 30, 1995, transmitting the Draft Memorandum of
Agreement and archaeological survey report by Paul A. Webb concerning the above
project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
31 AN60 Early Woodland prehistoric site Criterion D
Three sites have been recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places after the Phase I archaeological survey.
These properties lie outside the impact area of the landfill and will not be
affected. They are:
31 AN62, Locus B
Multicomponent prehistoric lithic site Criterion D
Prehistoric GI IIJLVI itr .71LG
I
�.L
l.Gl I�ii 11 V
31 AN75 Prehistoric site Criterion D
Of the sites determined eligible or recommended as potentially eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places, only site 31 AN60 will be adversely
z _ affected by landfill construction. The draft Memorandum of Agreement indicates a
mitigation plan will be developed in consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Office and implemented by Chambers of N.C., Inc. We concur with
this recommendation. The draft Memorandum of Agreement addresses the need
'- for data recovery and preservation of potentially significant sites. However, the
language is such that the Army Corps of Engineers may not be willing to sign the
agreement. We suggest you consult with Richard Lewis in the Wilmington District
Office (910/251-4755) to revise the current draft.
109 East Jones Street - RaleiRb, North Carolina 27601-2807

Daniel F. Cassedy
June 21, 1995, Page 2
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
31 AN62, Loci A, C Prehistoric lithic site Lack of integrity
31 AN83 Prehistoric lithic site Lack of integrity
Archaeological sites 31 AN61, 31 AN64, 31 AN76, 31 AN82, 31 AN 127, and
31AN130 have been previously determined ineligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
` Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: Richard Lewis, Army Corps of Engineers

North Carolina Department of Cultarai Rmources
3smes a Hum h, GOV==
Betty Ray Mcclin, S=Twy
October 9, 1997
Paul A. Webb
Branch Manager, Chapel Hill
TRC Garrow Associates, Inc.
6340 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 200
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Re: Data Recovery Plan, Anson County Regional
Landfill, ER 92-8226, ER 98-7473
Dear Mr. Webb:
Dsvisiott of A, bxm and Mstuy
kftY I C mw. Dkc=c
Thank you for your letter of September 3, 1997, transmitting the draft data
recovery plan for archaeological investigation of site 31 AN60 at the proposed
Anson County landfill. We have reviewed the proposed plan and feel it is
comprehensive and thorough. We look forward to submission of a draft final report
detailing the results of the data recovery.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic.
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservations Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
conceming the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-E:ariey, environmental
review coordinator,_at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
" Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:stw
cc: Jim Coffey
Solid Waste Section
Division of Waste Management, DENR
.-
kw A109 East Jones Shcet • Raleigh, North Carolina 27G02-2$07

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 21, 1997
Regulatory Division
Action ID 199203131
Mr. Paul A. Webb
Branch Manager, Chapel Hill
TRC Garrow Associates Inc.
6430 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 200
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Dear Mr. Webb:
Thank you for your letter of October 9, 1997, in which you forwarded the draft data
recovery plan for archaeological site 31AN60 at the proposed Anson County Regional Landfill
in Anson County, North Carolina.
Mr. Richard Lewis, Archaeologist, of the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Planning and Environmental Branch has reviewed the document and determined that it
adequately addresses the issues relating to potential archaeological impacts at the site.
Thank you for coordinating this matter with us. If you have questions or if I can be of
assistance, please call me at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Ernest W. Ja e
Manager, Wilmington Field Office

APPENDIX 2: PALEOETHNOBOTANICAL REPORT
i .
L=L

ARCHEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS OF FEATURE 7, SPRING SITE (31AN60),
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
by
Nancy Asch Sidell
A report submitted to
TRC Garrow Associates, Inc.
March 5, 1998

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ANALYSIS OF FEATURE 7, SPRING SITE (31AN60), ANSON
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
The Spring site is located in southcentral North Carolina on a dissected ridge at the confluence
of two unnamed tributaries to Pinch Gut Creek. The site dates to the Late Archaic and Early
Woodland period. The area of occupation covers approximately 100 x 130 m and is composed
of three spatially distinct activity loci. Only one feature contained possible subsistence remains.
Feature 7 may date to the Early Woodland period on the basis of an ovate projectile point
recovered in the feature fill. There are no comparable sites with analyzed archeobotanical
remains in North Carolina (Scarry and Scarry 1997).
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Spring site is in the oak -pine forest region of the Piedmont Upland province in the
Appalachian Highlands (Braun 1950). There is no virgin forest in the Piedmont region today. In
=a the original forest cover of the Piedmont, there was an eastern pine belt, a belt of deciduous
forests, and a western pine belt. Eyre (1980) describes the vegetation as it is today, after three
centuries of lumbering and other disturbances. His map of major forest cover types places the
Spring site within the loblolly-shortleaf pine zone. This type is the most widespread of all
southern forest cover types. It is a transient type that reverts to an upland oak climax in the
absence of fire. A diverse understory varies in composition and density according to the site and
soil moisture conditions. Herbaceous vegetation is generally sparse, especially in undisturbed
stands, and includes various species of grass and sedge (Eyre 1980:56).
METHODS OF RECOVERY AND ANALYSIS
y Plant remains were recovered from floating the entire contents of Feature 7, N'/2 and S %z, using
a Flote-Tech system built by Dausman Technical Services. This system uses a I mm screen in
the main flotation box.
u
In the archaeobotanical laboratory, the samples were sieved, cleaned, and sorted according to
techniques developed at the Center for American Archeology (D.L. Asch & Asch 1985). The
samples were sieved through 2 mm, 1 mm, and 0.5 mm screens; and contaminants were
removed before weighing charcoal with an electronic balance accurate to 0.0001 g. Charcoal
larger than 2 mm was sorted and quantified by counting rather than by weighing categories;
charcoal 0.5-2 mm was scanned for presence/absence of rare categories; and all seeds were
removed. Charcoal weight and counts of some categories were estimated in the 0.5-1 mm
fraction by using a riffle sampler to produce a subsample for quantitative analysis. Charcoal
smaller than 0.5 mm was not systematically examined, because it rarely yields identifiable

2
remains. Uncarbonized plant remains were assumed to be more recent inclusions and were not
tabulated.
From counts of the charcoal larger than 2 mm, the percentage occurrence of charcoal types by
weight can be approximated. Extensive testing at the Center for American Archeology for sites
in Illinois has shown that this method gives results closely comparable to complete sorting and
weighing of samples. Quantification by enumeration of large -fraction (>2 mm) contents has two
significant advantages over weighing and complete sorting: it is much faster, and identifications
are more reliable because the larger fragments more often have diagnostic characteristics.
For wood charcoal, the objective was to identify 20 fragments larger than 2 mm per sample. The
transverse section of the wood was examined at 30X magnification after manually breaking the
charcoal to obtain a clean section.
SAMPLE COMPOSITION
Two samples from Feature 7 were examined. The categories of plant remains that were
recovered include wood, bark, pitch, twig, acorn nutshell, pine needle, rhizome, unknown, and
grass seeds, as shown in Table 1. The results are not standardized for sample volume.
Wood
At most archaeological sites, wood (with associated bark, pitch, and twigs) is the most abundant
category of plant remain. The large variety of wood types recovered from most sites suggests
that there was no selection for particular types of firewood. Assuming the same to be true of the
Spring site, the wood types represented are likely to reflect the forest composition near the site,
and therefore can be used for environmental reconstruction. Pine constituted 75% of the wood
fragments recovered, red oak group 20%, and diffuse porous wood 5%. The pine could be
loblolly (Pinars taeda), shortleaf (P. echinata), longleaf (P. palustris), or Virginia pine (P.
virginiana) (Little 1971, 1977). A clue as to the identity of the pine was provided by a single
three -needled clump of pine needle fragments found in the northern half of the feature. Virginia
pine needles grow in clumps of two, so Virginia pine can be removed from consideration.
Shortleaf pine is widely distributed in North Carolina and has needles in bundles of two and
three. Some specimens of shortieaf pine may bear both two- or three -needle clusters, but most
bundles have only two needles, according to Petrides (1972). Loblolly pine has needles in
threes; it is primarily a coastal plain species but all of Anson County lies within its range.
Longleaf pine has needles in threes, and it is also primarily a species of the coastal plain.
However, the Spring site is on the westernmost edge of the present distribution of longleaf pine
�- in Anson County. By a process of elimination, it seems that the pine that produced the bundle of
three needles in this feature could be either loblolly or longleaf pine, but is more likely to be
loblolly based on modern distribution of these species mapped by Little (1971).
r:*

3
Twenty percent of the archaeological wood was from red oak group trees. Altogether there are
fourteen species of oak that grow in Anson County today (Little 1971, 1977).
The two fragments of diffuse porous wood were too small to identify accurately. Also, the
remaining fragments of unidentified wood were too small to increase the sample size to more
than 20 fragments of wood identified per flotation sample
Table 1. SprinR Site (NC31AN60): Charcoal,
Feature
7 N1/2
7 S1/2
Total
SAMPLE WEIGHT (g)
>2 mm
2.33
0.41
2.74
1-2 turn
2.23
0.65
2.88
0.5-1 mm
0.77
0.16
0.92
Total
5.33
1.21
6.54
SAMPLE COMPOSITION (>2mm)
Wood
167
48
215
La
Bark
80
19
99
Pitch & pitchy wood
10
1
11
Twig
-
P
P
Acorn nutshell
(1)
-
(1)
'
Pine needle
(318)
(44)
(362)
Rhizome
2
-
2
Unknown
-
1
l
t
Seeds
(3)
-
(3)
Total
259
69
328
SEED IDENTIFICATIONS
Poaceae, grass family
3
-
3
WOOD IDENTIFICATIONS
s
Pinus spp., pine
15
15
30
Quercu.s spp., red oak group
4
4
8
Diffuse porous
1
1
2
i
Total
20
20
40
SAMPLE VOLUME (0
12.5
4
16.5
Note: P = present in 0.5-2 mm charcoal.
() = count in 0.5-2 tutu charcoal.
I

M
Pine needles
An estimated 362 tiny fragments of carbonized pine needle were preserved in Feature 7. All
parts of the pine tree (dried leaves, roots, resin, bark, and catkins) were used by various eastern
Indian groups for food, medicinal, or technological' purposes (King 1984). The leaves were
sometimes used as an inhalant or fumigant. It is possible that the pine needle fragments in this
feature could be present as a byproduct of intentional use, or their presence may be an indication
that the site was covered with pine needles at the time of occupation.
Nutshell
Possible food remains were represented by only one fragment of acorn nutshell. Given that red
oak group trees grew on or near the site, it is not possible to say if the single fragment represents
an accidental inclusion in the feature or a byproduct of use of acorns for food.
Seeds
Three grass seeds of three different types were represented in Feature 7 (see Photograph 1). The
t l seeds measure 3.3 x L5 mm, 2.2 x 1.6 mm, and >2.1 x 1.3 mm. The grass seeds were not
identified to species. Although many kinds of grass seeds were eaten by western Indians (King
1984), there are few ethnographic references to the use of grass seeds for food in eastern North
America. It is possible that the grass seeds are present as a byproduct of using grass stems and
leaves for technological purposes such as thatching, pit lining, matting, and fire starting.
However, no grass stems were recovered from the feature, indicating that the seeds were
probably not introduced as a byproduct of using the stems for technological purposes.
F Other Remains
The two rhizome fragments were very tiny, not identifiable to species. The single unknown
larger than 2 mm was a nondescript fragment of charcoal.
CONCLUSIONS
Wood charcoal analysis suggests a pine and oak forest grew on or near the Spring site during the
time of occupation. Although the pine needles, single acorn nutshell fragment, and three grass
seeds in Feature 7 could represent plants that were used for medicine, food, or technological
purposes, they may also simply be a record of plants that grew on the site. The mixture of pine
and oak may indicate a forest in succession, probably as a result of burning, rather than a climax
forest. Alternatively, in the original deciduous forests of the Piedmont, pines would have been
confined to the hilltops (Braun 1950), so the pine and oak mixture may be a climax type for the
r Spring site area. The grass seeds suggest an open forest with sunlight available for understory
and herbaceous vegetation. However, an open forest of this type could be expected to contain a
variety of shrubs producing edible fruits. The lack of seeds of edible fruits and paucity of

G
nutshell suggests that the Spring site was not occupied as a food processing camp. The lack of
fruit seeds and nutshell could also indicate occupation at a time of the year when few food
resources are available, such as winter or early spring.
REFERENCES CITED
Asch, D.L., and N.B. Asch
1985 Archeobotany. In Smiling Dan: Structure and Function at a Middle Woodland
Settlement in the Illinois Valley, edited by B.D. Stafford and M.B. Sant; pp.
327-401. Kampsville Archeological Center, Research Series, Vol. 2. Center for
American Archeology, Kampsville, Illinois.
Braun, Lucy E.
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Hafner Publishing Company, New
York.
Eyre, F.H., Ed.
L4 1980 Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada. Society of American
Foresters.
King, Frances B.
1984 Plants, People and Paleoecology. Illinois State Museum, Scientific Papers 20.
Little, E.L., Jr.
1971 Atlas of United States Trees, Volume 1, Conifers and Important Hardwoods. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication, Vol. 1146.
United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1977 Atlas of United States Trees, Volume 4, Minor Eastern Hardwoods. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication, Vol. 1342,
17 pp., 230 maps.
Petrides, George A.
1972 A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs. Second Edition. The Petersen Field Guide
Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Scarry, John F. and C. Margaret Scarry
-� 1997 Subsistence Remains from Prehistoric North Carolina Archaeological Sites.
Published on the internet at http://www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us.

APPENDIX 3: PHYTOLITH ANALYSIS REPORT
77.

PHYTOLITH ANALYSIS
OF
A SOIL SAMPLES
FROM
31AN60
ANSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Submitted by:
id Dr. Irwin Rovner
Binary Analytical Consultants
1902 Alexander Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27608
Submitted to:
TRC Garrow Associates, Inc.
6340 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 200
Chapel Hill, NC 27514

INTRODUCTION
Phytolith analysis was conducted on a single soil sample for a cultural feature
at the archaeological site, 31AN60, Anson County, NC. In addition to the usual
assessement the preservation and quantity of phytolith, indication of natural
floral present, and ethnobotanical activity. This last aspect included a specific
question of ethnobotanical activity. Namely, the presence of pine charcoal in
the feature extended to the question of other possible ethnobotanical uses of
pine, e.g. pine needles, which are a source of distinctive phytoliths.
METHODS
PhytoUth extraction from soil.
Conventional soil extraction procedures for the soil sample were initially
used with modifications employed as required by the nature of specific sample.
Standard procedures generally followed that found in Rovner (1971, 1983).
The soil was initially "cleaned" to promote disaggregation of all particles -
inorganic, organic and biolithic - as follows:
1. About 20 ml volume of soil placed into clean beaker.
2. Distilled water added, stirred, and either placed in a centrifuge at moderate
speed for 20 to 30 minutes, or let settle for a minimum of 4 hours. Piperno
(1988) suggests one hour is sufficient for tropical soils. The additional time
provided here was an arbitrary caution procedure given possible factors of soil
differences. Only small to very small amounts of macrobotanical fragments,
fibers or particles were observed.
3. The aliquot with suspended fine particles and very light fraction material,
e.g. floating rootlets, fibers, charcoal, etc., was decanted and discarded.
4. To oxidize and eliminate (sticky) organic residues, the soil was treated with
i 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution (i.e. commercial household bleach). This
was successful precluding use of concentrated hydrogen peroxide or nitric acid
4 solutions which are more difficult to handle and far less environmentally
benign (with respect to disposal, for example.)
5. Following oxidation, the soil sample were rinsed 2-3 times with distilled
water, stirred, settled or centrifuged and decanted.
6. Dilute HCl (20 ml) was added to the sample to remove carbonates. The
sample did not react to the acid. The sample was allowed to settle, the aliquot
decanted and discarded.
7. The sample was rinsed 3 times with distilled water.
8. The soil was resuspended in distilled water to which a deflocculant (i.e.
Calgon) was added to suspend very fine silt particles. After centrifuging or
settling overnight, the aliquot with suspended fine particles was decanted and
t discarded. Step 8 was repeated as necessary, until aliquot was clean.
9. Soil was placed in a drying oven set at 90°C until dry.
10. Heavy liquid for flotation separation was prepared by dissolving zinc
bromide powder in slightly acidified distilled water until a specific gravity
between 2.3 and 2.4 was achieved. This was easily determined using a
f commercially -made calibrated hydrometer.
11. A 5 ml, approximately, volume of dry soil was added to heavy liquid in a
1
.m
1

M
bent clear tygon tube which was squeezed gently to "wet" the soil. The bent
tube was inserted into a (lightly greased) centrifuge shell and centrifuged at
moderate speed for 30 minutes to float phytoliths.
12. After centrifugation, clamps were placed on both vertical arms of the bent
tube just below the flotant surface in the tube. A wash bottle stream of water
was used to rinse the flotant from the tygon tube into a 50 nil centrifuge tube.
13. Distilled water was added to the centrifuge tube to about 40 ml level.
Centrifugation precipitated the phytoliths. The aliquot was decanted. This step
was then repeated.
14. Phytoliths were then decanted to a shell vial and placed in a drying oven to
remove excess liquid.
Microscope scanning
The phytolith extracts were quick -mounted in distilled water and viewed in an
optical microscope at 400X. Mounts were prepared by pressing a slide over
the mouth of an open vial which was then inverted. The extract was allowed to
settle on the slide and then reverted to its original orientation, the slide quickly
removed retaining a drop of fluid with a portion of extract included.
Whole slides were scanned at 100X to find clusters of particles which
were then scanned at 40OX to determine the character of individual particles.
Representative and especially taxonomically significant phytoliths and other
biosilica bodies (e.g. diatoms and sponge spicules) in each slide mount were
noted.
Compilation and interpretation of data.
No phytolith reference database developed from phytolith extracts of
living plants in the site's region was available or specifically prepared for this
study. This severely limits taxonomic specificity in interpreting phytoliths
present and, predictably, leaves a substantial number of morphologically
distinctive (and sometimes frequent) phytolith types in the category of
"unknown". - However, recent publications, especially Rapp and Mulholland,
1992, provide substantial verification for both general and specific taxonomic
assignments of phytoliths.
In the absence of a regional phytolith database, published typological
information was employed for classification of phytolith types. For grasses, the
three tribe classification of Twiss, et al. (1969) into festucoid (wet, cool habitat),
panicoid (wet, warm habitat) and chloridoid (dry, warm habitat) phytolith
classes is the conventional standard, along with elaborations by Brown (1984).
For angiosperms (e.g. deciduous trees and shrubs) and conifers, Rovner
(1971), Geis (1973). Klein and Geis (1978) provide some guidance for eastern
woodland flora content. The most elaborate work to date in these taxa has
been done by Japanese experts (Kondo 1974, 1976, 1977; Kondo and Peason
1981; Kondo and Sase 1986; Kondo, et al. 1987) primarily on Asian flora.
However, considerable similarity of illustrated phytolith forms at the genus
level between American and Japanese plants provide confident guidance in the
taxonomic assignment of distinctive phytoliths in these categories. Most
recently studies by Cummings (1992) and Bozarth (1992) have confirmed and
refined the typology and taxonomy of phytoliths in dicotyledonous taxa.
2

Distinctive material can now be attributed specifically to Asteraceae
(Compositae) - a dicotyledonous group well represented and ethnobotanically
significant in the eastern United States. While soil phytolith studies in the
general region of the mid -Appalachians and Atlantic seaboard are few in
number, general comparisons can be drawn from studies at such eastern
historic period sites as Monticello, VA (Rovner, 1988b); Hampton, VA (Rovner,
1989); Harpers Ferry, WV (Rovner, 1994); Jordan Site (31NH256), NC (Rovner,
1984); 38CH 145 and 38BK 1011, SC and, National Museum of the American
Indian Mall Site (1997c) and prehistoric sites, such as, 31MK683, NC (Rovner,
1995a, 1995b), Wakefield Sites 31WA1376, 31WA1380 and 31WA1390), NC
(Rovner, 1998A); . Canton Site, 9CK9, GA (Rovner, 1996) and Nantucket Sites,
19NT50 and 19NT68, MA, (Rovner, 1998b). Moreover, the number of sites
tested in this region is increasing and recent reports (Rovner, 1997, Owens and
Rovner, 1997) provided a basis for general patterns of land use and botanical
history for the historic period, 17th through 19th century, in conjunction with
archaeological history.
With respect specifically to the present of pine phytoliths, the best
statement of distinctive phytolith forms for pines is the eastern United States is
by Klein and Geis (1978).
Biogenic opal was isolated in measurable quantities from 15 taxa of the
family Pinaceae..... Differences in the opal residue from different genera
Li were observed, with endodermal polyhedrons limited to Picea,
asterosclereids exclusive to Pseudotsuga, and epidermal cells with
distinctly undulating margins present in Pinus, Tsuga, and Abies.
Marginal undulations on the epidermal cells of Picea, Larix and
Pseudotsuga are less pronounced. Opal from Pinaceae leaves may be
most readily separated from that of other plant materials by the
presence of transfusion tissue tracheids with bordered pit impressions
and tapering ends. Epidermal cells are also distinctive, although careful
study will be required to distinguish them from the epidermal long cells
and costal rods of grasses. (Klein and Geis, 1978:145)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The first mount scanned contained a moderately dense assemblage of well-
preserved phytoliths. (See Table 1.) A full range of grass long/large cells (e.g.
rods, bulliforms, squares) and short cells were observed. Short cells were
almost entirely of the lobate form assignable to the warm, moist favoring
Panicoid group. Only one particle from the Chloridoid (warm, dry favoring)
class and no Festucoid (cool, moist favoring) group were observed. A large
proportion of the assemblage clearly derived from non -grass flora, but were
virtually all rather amorphous globules, plates and fragments with no
diagnostic features to allow further taxonomic identification. Epidermal
segments, hair cells, hair bases, and other forms indicative of deciduous trees
were not observed in any of the scans. By default, this suggests a grassy
meadow with scrub and thicket (weeds, shrubs and sub -shrubs) rather than
heavy tree canopy. However, this is based on general comparison to phytolith
3

assemblages in other ecological zones of this region, rather than from direct
knowledge of phytoliths in flora of this specific region.
The second and third mounts were scanned specifically to look for particles
attributable to conifers, specifically pine. These mounts were less dense, but
otherwise similar to the first mount. (See Table 1.) Pine epidermal phytoliths
are rather distinguishable from grass blocky forms in that the former typically
have angular margins and concave surface facets while the latter are more
clearly geometric in outline and rounded at corners. Angular particles fitting
this description were extremely rare. Thus, while some of the non -grass
particles may derive from pine, the frequency of presence need reflect nothing
more than a background natural floral element in the ecology.
Scan Panicoid Festucoid Chloridoid Lrg Grass Non -Grass
1 14 1 common common
2 4 present present
3 3 present present
Table 1: Phytolith assemblages observed with grasss short cell frequency
counts.
CONCLUSIONS
The phytolith assemblage from the one feature sample reflects a mixed grass
and non -grass ecology. A heavy forest canopy is not indicated, but this may
reflect cultural behavior bias in determining what floral material and residues
were deposited. Grasses are well -represented with the overwhelming
dominance of Panicoid grass to the virtual exclusion of that from other grass
tribes. Panicoid grasses dominate in moist, warm and mild ecological regimes,
i.e. is the expected dominant grass for this region.
Since maize is a panicoid phytolith (e.g. lobate short cell) producer, its presence
in a cultural feature as indicated by the overwhelming presence of lobates must
be considered. Clearly it is possible, but unlikely in this case. First, panicoid
s lobates are the expected natural dominant grass signature expected. Second,
virtually all of the observed lobates in the three scanned mounts were
morphologically simple. Maize lobates tend to be complex morphologically,
e.g., indented lobes, polylobates and 4-lobed cross bodies. These were not
observed.
Particles resembling the morphological characteristics of pine phytoliths were
exceedingly rare. No note was made of their presence in the first scan although
r.- no specific effort was made to look for them. The second and third mounts
were made and scanned specifically to look for pine particles. Phytoliths fitting
the description were exceedingly rare. Thus, while phytohths from pine needles
may occur in the assemblage, there is no indication of any special use of them.
G a y

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOZARTH, STEPHEN R.
1992 "Classification of opal phytoliths formed in selected dicotyledons native to
the Great Plains. in Phytolith Systematics: Emerging Issues, G. Rapp, Jr. and
S.C. Mulholland, ed. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 193-214.
1990 "Diagnostic opal phytoliths from pods of selected varieties of common
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)". American Antiquity, 55(1):98-104.
1987 "Diagnostic opal phytoliths from rinds of selected Cucurbita species."
American Antiquity, 52(3):607-15.
BROWN, DWIGHT A.
1984 "Prospects and limits of a phytolith key for grasses in the central United
States." Journal of Archaeological Science, 11(4):345-368.
CUMMINGS, LINDA S.
1992 "Illustrated phytoliths from assorted food plants." in Phytolith
Systematics: Emerging Issues, G. Rapp, Jr. and S.0 Mulholland, ed. Plenum
Press, New York, pp. 175-192.
DOOLITTLE, W.E. AND C.D. FREDERICK
1991 "Phytoliths as indicators of prehistoric maize (Zea mays subs • may
Poaceae) cultivation." Plant Systematics and Evolution, 177(3-4):175-184.
GEIS, JAMES W.
1973 "Biogenic silica in selected species of deciduous angiosperms." Soil
a; Science, 116(2):113-119.
KLEIN, ROBERT L. AND JAMES. W. GEIS
1978 "Biogenic silica in the Pinaceae". Soil Science, 126(3):145-156.
KONDO, RENZO
1977 Opal phytoliths, inorganic, Biogenic particles in plants and soils." Japan
Agricultural Research Quarterly, 11(4):198-203.
1976 "On the opal phytoliths of tree origins." Pedorofisuto (Pedologist), 20:176-
90.
1974 "Opal phytoliths - the relations between the morphological features of
opal phytoliths and the taxonomic groups of gramineous plants." Pedorofisuto
(Pedologist), 18:2-10.
KONDO, RENZO AND TOMOKO PEASON
1981 "Opal phytoliths in tree leaves (Part 2): Opal phytoliths in dicotyledonous
angiosperm tree leaves." Research Bulletin of Obihiro University, Series 1,
12(3):217-30.
KONDO, RENZO AND TAKAHASHI SASE
1986 "Opal phytoliths, their nature and application." Daiyonki Kenkyu
(Quaternary Research), 25(1):31-63.
KONDO, RENZO, TAKAHASHI SASE AND Y. KATO
1987 'Opal phytolith analysis of Andisols with regard to interpretation of
paleovegetation.' Proceedings of the Ninth International Soil Classification
Workshop, Japan. D.I. Kinloch et al., editors, pp. 520-534.
KONDO, RENZO AND T. SUMIDA
1978 'The study of opal phytoliths of tree leaves. I. Opal phyto- liths in
gymnosperm and monocotyledonous angiosperm tree leaves.' Journal of the
Science of Soil and Manure, Japan, 49(2):138-44.
5

OWENS, DAPHNE AND IRWIN ROVNER
1997 "Phytoliths from historic and prehistoric contexts at Scull Shoals, Oconee
National Forest, and Skidaway Island, Georgia." presented in Symposium
Phytolith Analysis for Archaeologists, Annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Nashville, TN, April.
PIPERNO, DOLORES R.
1988 Phytoliths analysis. in Archaeobotanical Results from the 1987
Excavation at Morven (Princeton, New Jerseyj, edited by N. F. Miller and A.
Yentsch, Morven Interim Report No. 2 for the New Jersey State Museum, Trenton,
p.50-55.
ROVNER, IRWIN
1998a. Phytolith Analysis of Selected Soil Samples from Wakefield Sites,
31WA1380, 31WA1390 and 31WA1376, Wake County, North Carolina.
submitted to TRC Garrow and Associates, Chapel Hill, NC.
1998b. Phytolith Analysis of Selected Soil Samples from Sites 19NT50 and
19NT68, Nantucket Island, MA., submitted to The Public Archaeology
laboratory, Inc., Pawtucket, RI.
1997 a. Phytolith analysis of selected soil samples from the Successionville
Site, (38CH 1456), South Carolina. sumitted to Chicora Foundation, Columbia,
SC.
1997b. Phytolith Analysis of selected soil samples from Features 8 and 9 at the
Crowfield Plantation Site (38BK 1011), South Carolina. submitted To Chicora
Foundation, Columbia, SC.
1997c. Phytolith Analysis of the National Museum of the American Indian Site,
Washington, D.C, Submitted to J. Milner Associates, Alexandria, VA.
1996. Phytolith analysis of soil samples from five features at the Canton Site
(9CK9), Georgia, submitted to Garrow and Associates, Raleigh, NC
1995a. Phytolith Analysis of Selected Soil Samples from Site 31MK683, North
Carolina. submitted to R.S. Webb and Associates; on file, Office of State
Archaeologist, North Carolina Division of Archives and History. Raleigh.
1995b. Phytolith Analysis of Two Additional Soil Samples from Site 31MK683,
North Carolina. submitted to R.S. Webb and Associates; on file, Office of State
Archaeologist, North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
1995c. Phytolith analysis of Selected Soil Samples from Site 32Bk621,
Pennsylvania. submitted to Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.
1994 "Floral History by the Back Door: Phytolith Analysis of Two Residential
Yards at Harpers Ferry." Historical Archaeology, 28(4)37-48.
1990 "Fine-tuning Floral History with Opal Phytolith Analysis," in Earth
Patterns, Essays in Landscape Archaeology, W. Kelso and R. Most, editors, The
University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
1989: "Quick -scan Phytolith Assessment of Selected Soil Samples from 18th
and 19th Century Cultural Deposits in the City of Hampton, Virginia,"
submitted to the Archaeology Project Center, The College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, VA.
1988a. Micro- and Macro -environmental Reconstruction using Plant Opal
Phytolith Data from Archaeological Sediments. Geoarchaeology, 3(2):155-165.
1988b. Quick -scan Phytolith Analysis of Selected Soil Samples from Suggested
Fodder Plots at Monticello, VA, submitted to the Monticello Foundation,
6

Charlottesville, VA.
1986 "Vertical Movement of Phytoliths in Stable Soil: A Non -Issue." Plant Opal
Phytolith Analysis in Archaeology and Paleoecology, Proceedings of the 1984
Phytolith Research Workshop. North Carolina State Universily, Raleigh. I.
Rovner, editor. Occasional Papers No. I of The Phytolitharien, Raleigh.
1984: "Assessment of Phytolith Assemblages from Selected Soil Samples of the
Jordan Site (31NH256), New Hanover County, NC," submitted to Archaeological
Research Consultants, Inc., Chapel Hill, NC.
1983: a. "Preliminary Phytolith Assessment of Four Archaeological Sites in
Tishomingo County, Mississippi," submitted to Environmental Consultants,
Inc., Dallas, Tx.
1983b. "Major advances in Archaeobotany: Archaeological uses of opal
phytolith analysis," Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 6, M.
Schiffer, Editor, Academic Press, New York.
1971 "Potential of opal phytoliths for use in paleoecological reconstruction,
Quaternary Research," (1)3:
JOHN C. RUSS AND IRWIN ROVNER
1989 "Stereological identification of opal phytolith populations from wild and
cultivated Zea mays." American Antiquity, 54(3):784-792.
TWISS, PAGE C., ERWIN SUESS AND ROBERT M. SMITH
1969 Morphological classification of grass phytoliths. Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings, 33(1):109-115.
N

APPENDIX 4: GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS REPORT
Lj

N
O
N
N
co
Q
(U
00 Q
Z
NZ
U)
fj�
�U N
O
Lu O I=- M
Q
Z z c'1
O
<
J Q
U
:3
0<W
�
= C
mN ro
U
E
E
U)
W
0
W
MOM
It
a
J
U_
J
Z
Q
t ,■
V
m �J
■1' a ` v r.-
nQ (n0�
In
V m o1
N
A � O
X
Ca
m LL
J
E N
r fs
N
O
m
u'
N
N
a Q cp
co
y
m m(.N
d cjon
Q
—` 51 qZ
W U Z
� a)
a1 Z 0_
Cllf)
w
F-
U
�
F-
M
W
U
W
LU
a.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0- J O O O O O O O O O O 00
O Om
O 00
00
O O O O 00
00
O O O 00
00
O d
OIA o 00 OIAO 000 to 000011f OOIA 0000 001A 00 000 rl
rl .4 H H rl rl rl rl rl rl rl O rl 'i r♦ rl rl r4 rl rl rl .-I rl rl rl rl .i rl
rl
Z
O
U� NriN OIA Nri lA ti 14 rl 00rl o rl lfl rl rl H O NN H H rl 00 r10N0
HJ OO r♦O OO Orl ri O r40 O rl 0rl ri A C
Ili O O O O O O O
p
to f4
M E
pO pM11p00q0pq1pNI1p1q{{14yp0pqMp�ppMgqpP1q0ptpoqpp0q11p114q�p0p1qppMgqppMqtpo�to)
pptoqmtpoqtpoqpmpgqpmpgqTpAqpmpqppmqqpmpqppmrAytpoq�.1
FCiila:riAsiii�lt'CltrCriW fCfCsifCftR��i�Cafi�ifC�C+i,tf�ifCz
i=— I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 P4
w aaaaaaaaaaaaavv��94ew04ofP.aaaaolaaaaafl.mC4p
� U U U U U U U u u u u u u �C U u u u u u u U u U U U U U U u u u 0
H H H H H H H H H H H H H fist H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H W
u u u u u u u u u a IX1 u u uX U u 0 u u.WM w u
OX 0 0 0 OX O O O OX O OX O OX O U O O H OX O U u u 0
N u N N N N O H N w N U H X H u H H u L1 0 H H H U N 0 0 0 N
of Hof of of of Nalofofof Nall Oof Hof al Nof HIV.V�Is HINH NHIs
Z r4 a1 rl rl rl rl of rl ri ri rl al rl -1H r1 of ri rl ar r4 rl rl -LN -11 ra of rl r4
d f .l •rl +l . l .l •.l .l +l +l +l 11 of .l +l .l +l rl ..4 +l 0 •.l •rf rf rl rf +f
m Hm m m. m m m mm -mo mmm wm00 m .1 mml mr, mrl —10
m m mb°m m mmm
c.. l 1i)In 4.1 -alaldl-adaa•aqi 0 om.,• mL al mal,- a1 ti ym al L•- i1-
wp mymmmmalmmmmalmrl m00iqugdgq •duaaa
a3mmamg0 000 aaagm
Ommm ews 410499 9)Uag m 0004V O m mddm m8mgmedmmmB
l 11 r19 l r1r0 rmirf B r-I rlrirlBrl ri rl 8
41
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Q m m m m m m rl m m m m m m rl ri H m
ri r1 rl O m r-I rl m rl m m m
N m c V N N N m N N N N m N z r l N m N N m N N N N N m N N
to mf•1 crl N M NM cal PI M mM MM M N m enmfrl f'1NNNP1
fV N (V N N N L4 r1 N N •m
s"'esss"ssa»"emeaMe`"ee'', �e»ee'"e e°'
a» aaaa•• aaaa» as a» aa» a aaaa•• as e s am
A P.pf aaaaae as P, aaae aaaaaafle aaawam
brr{{mldm+fd'00k80db db Ob-1 AA01l.lr-I qd
1CfCfl,P1lmm V uuu PutlM)4.3z �xzA.Plm mmHE4D>.4NiL
fn fn f+I fn PI m rI rI P1 H1 fn f�I f+I Pl r/ rl rl r•f f-I fn rn fn fh ro m rn fn f�I fn M rl ri rl
X fA CI O.iN MdIA wt•0000 Nrl V IA wr•aDgO ri N f+l V IA ID t`co at C1
ww rl v4 NNNNNN NN NIA RIN MIA f'1 mNmNfn V •d V V -4 V V V V •0 H
2 17 r1 r4 rl rl rl rl H rl rl rl rl rl rl rl r1 r1 .i rl rl rl rl 4 rl . 1 .i rl rl rl rl rl rl rl
S 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r1
U U
U
z
0)
W
a
U
O
(1) Z
O
U
Cc om
a zrc a
0 Q (7
U
cc
m4�
Z •�
m
am
Oat PO
F3 cl
fn
rl
�o
H
0 43
�a
L m
al 3
IL
m 0
a
mw
rl
H
mN
m
Z
0
Z
a
H
m u
Q
LU
w
O o
co
p
1 4.)
Q
La
a
mA
�
a
m1
W
J
u
A
IL
_
¢w
ma
fh fh
Y/
Mm
MQ
Z
x
rl 01
Ww
O N pe
:2p
IH N
wp
=U
U
O m
Iw m b .t H
rl m
amIk
d m m
d m H
+iX idd d
m0t,0
m M Mani b
a R
Cldg0d
X r1 dA•.la
Pi
H.911A.
umO
o
mrmi 11 mu
Bd0+1
rl mW 17u
m p m O
41 -H
ch0eto mwa
m d m bl
HH 4)P0'0ME
.PO�Z~'
SL O. .
O
E•-pp a
alap";
8?'"-a n.
y C. sO a0-
L O aslQ C�
"• 0 D �+
pmO�a1
mEg��
==0O
CSW

OD N
n]Nz
wNZ
¢
a
is
a
mo o-0
7 m j
ca C
Z(L•2 CD
m—�•— o
�.��oQU
N
O
mom> U
at—o5o.¢
N
N
r
co
O
Q
U)
(A
}
J
Q
o
Z
Q
Z
N Z
(n
w
w O
LL
O
ct
Oom
Z�g
Q
Q
J�
0Z
OJ
00
U
g J
ZO 11 F--
�'
O
OC
<
2
j
Z S
¢ ¢
~�
O
-J
O n. v
L1j
0
cc U
CS2�
r
cMOUN
E
m E
p
23
■
V
m
�� (A Co LO
UCOD#. ) Ln
N m c?
� N
cc X
n-. LL
Vl
Ln
L C W
CD to
W N
y CD cv
m Cam"
= m Z
r U vZ
+ Cr) Zn=
V a`
A�

O N
O>
m N "
W N Z
m m a,
io
D N0 ciD
Ernm
� Z ED '8
Za•� vZ ,
m- o
rnf9 � 0 0
lC p (D > U
aHoSCL<
U
o Q
Z
N Z
W
F- o
H
a Q
U
_
cc
Z�
U
0=
F—
J
a
C7 0
z
¢J
0H
p
cc
0-
�W
co
¢¢
dn.v
k U
4t
C3
C
(MDUN
U CD
E
°' E
0
U
♦ +■
i■� `
m
CO
to
com
�i m m
N
T
A •�H O
�IYI n
J�
`
LL
Yf C)
x M
`
/� ♦ C7 > cv
W U.)
Q
¢ th
p.■ m N cy
r 41 (0 W
U .D
Z
i •,
f17
rnza

co
co
cc
a
0• 0 0 090000 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
Q•0000
n-J
000000omo000oo0000000000000•
000 V
O • 00 0 IA 00 0 00 O 0'000 000 00
O IA O 0 o O UI 0 0 0 IA 00 0 OIA 00 0 000000 0 0 0 0 0It
z
O
I- I-
U-E • N.INOIANriN.i.i.i.i O O.i 0.i IA.i.i.i 0NN H.i.i O O.i O NO
W - • O .•i • O C)H .•I CD.i O CD .4 O .-1 .-1 'i
1 J O O O C;
W O O O O O O O
m
LU
C
a 9
W
0
p
O
k=-•
w
�W�q pptQq pWpqq N UI pVI
ppEnq yppEOq pMpq p&p0q pUpqq) mpqppwq pmpqq pmpqq p0pq ppwq p91
ppMq ppWqq pEOq pMp� ppWq pWpq ppMq ppMp pMpq ppM�MpMpq �HEr
it �C K .t ft �t sQ fC +C rQ sC K h. it •C K fC K fC ft rC rC R �C sC it RC RC Z
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M
aaaaaaaaaaaaapff'� aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa[O�
H H H H H H H H H H H H H st H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
L1.
o
Z N Z
-
LU
U) �...0
w (n Cr_
i- _Q
C.)_N
CJ 2
O W�
(90
ZZ
O �J
CC=
CC Q
Q =) w
n.'
Q 0=
►- to U N
o
F-
�,,
F
c
Q
C
m
E
Q
U
a
J
Q
V
L
r
}
J
Q
Z
Q
0
cc
rUn
w
p
x X X X X X X X X x X X X x x x O x X x
U O D U U U U U U U U U U U X U U O U B X x X U
Ox O 0 O OX 0 0 O OX O Ox 0 Ox 0 0 0 O H OX 0 0 0 U 0
NUHHNNUNi•1HNUH XNUNHUHOMN HUH000H
0 0 0 0 0 0 M at 0 M k k
a1 H IN of 4a8 $4 al at at Chi 11 .M d 0 al it at 0 k a al Chi 4 H 4 Chi
.i a! .-1 .-1 .i .-i a! .-1 •i .-1 •i al .i •0 wrl a! .-1 •-1 al .i .a 'I .n al 0
'i
•.i + 1 +i -4 +i +1 •.i +1 -.1 .i it at .•1 •.i •.i .-I .i »i »i 0 •.i +i .i .i .i •.i
0.-10000,40000,400 0.1 00.•10+100 m 0.-I0-A-4+40
m-A m m m 0-1 m m m m14 m m.-1 m•1 m m•.i m 0 m m m»I m 0 0 0 m
0 0 .. 0 a-rl 0 0 m- 0 m m m
Chi m aialalai mailltlai maib mtt mritl mas ,yLamJti mii .Chi
q �gAcl 0 ,q qqq ,q q ,dq quggqq qua�uq
malmmmma7mmmmJlm.i ma/m mLmgmmmmaimgqqm
e g e e e e A S e e e d e U +i e g e e d e m e e El a e m m m e
m m mmm m m m m m m m m x g m m m m m m e m m m m m m e e e m
•-1 @ •i .i -4 .i a • 1 .i .i •i 0 .i 1 m .i a ►i .i a .i m H .i 'i ri a ri m m m .i
m m m m m m m m m m m m m to e m m m m m m ri m m m m m m _4r•I r•I m
r4 H •-4 0 m .i .i m •i m m m
N m NNNN mN NNN mN ZZ 4" m NN m N N NNN m N N
N f•1 f1 f•1M Nfn FI f•I m m mm mm MNf•1 mmm mNNN m
N f`7 /V N N N iV N N m CI'i
rl m » .• •. •. /n » » N » fn •• « fn rn » Pf
s test eeee e.ofhe ee e••s�ee e•• e
; aaaadP aaaade as adt AChat aaaaaaeB APfPf�a
Pap
6�daM0dRA m
At04FCQM 000U V C6CGl}XSZASP4I1v CA CH0>MNa
V
m
11 l 05 Ln
CD N
(D C?
H N
O O
� ( ry �
cc ¢ X
N LLL
.ffj c)
xx
m
�CDa;
> V)
Chaco
N m .cv
0
m ��O
w, V 'DZ
W �} co Z
a) a)O
rnZn
Ua
all
w
U
1=
W
0
cr Uh
w 11i
m_j
M
�M
z�
X
W
M p
w p
= U
U
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.i .-I .-1 .-I ,-t .i .-1 rl .i .i .i rl ri ri .a .i .i ri .i .i .i .i .i .i .-I .i .-I ./ .i .a .i .;I ri
m 0%0.4N Nd m w IFm 000"rfv w wm0%0.-INm V IA%0 I-m OI m
.•i.-IN NN NNNNNNNPf Nf•I IA f•l f•1 f•l P'1 (•1 f•1d V V V Vdd V d V .i
rl .-1 .i .i .-I .i .i .-i .i .i .i .i .-I rl .-1 ri .-I .-1 .i .-1 .i r•I rl .i .i .i rl .i .i e•1 .-I .i
N N N N f V N N N N N N N N N N N f `7 N N N N N N f V f V N N N N N N 14
m
d CI
N ?+
Z A
a �0
U
O om
Z
Q O Q
UU '0 a
O Zo " m
0: O Z yi d
Q Z Q E 0 ¢ c,, u q 1
14
U m0
IUD # m
Z •p^0 .,i
n 0.0_ m E.
m
Z
N
Z
0
m U
a
w
co-H
p
1 Lm
U
a
.)bl
�L
.mi o
C
m a 1
LU
Q
J
E H
a
¢w
a
w
mn•
CD a
�Q
.O.1 . f HU)
zm
X
.10rn h
WW
Mp
O N N E
NN N
WQ
=U
0
M C:tbiDO�
>
C "'L=v, .
m O.0 .
o to >
> p 0.'.::
C
n EE.m
��.0 a .;
NON
m O t.�
XL a _
m >• 0
m.55,a
3 �...
0960,.
�oa0-
a
ro �.o >.
oW000
m.E q am
v�
,mc O O C:
F-Lr70

rn rn 0
to (:>
CD 10
fn z
Q �co Z
O1ch n.
............
m
m
D (D p D
ZcD a..2 )z z
N >
m O V
a1-USaQ
CD
00
T"
co
a
U)
}
J
a
o
Z
a
N Z
_Z
fn
W
wO
LL
O
i
cr
Q
Z
W
OS
�
J
Q
°C
00
0
U
U_
O~
O
Q�
S
Z .��.
Q
Dw
�av
QQ
W
c7
O
U
cc
i F-
l..
m2�
to UN
c
m
U E
a)E
0
FO
a- U
n< fnO�
i //►
ar Cl)
y N
O
O
ro �
Co
X
N Q
N
_
D C
'
�
x
w`
m 7to
W
In
�QC?
.V
m �jt
w,
W
V N m W
�z
> O
rnZa
ro
Ua
0 a � .1.�.1�.,
p.V v V v V v v v v v
0 13 1 ofn.noo I fnolnino
vv�ofnn nrnmfnr.
t oP .* I I d In fn m m In V
00000 00000
O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
.d H o0Co. 00 00000
0.
v v v v v v v v v v
PC aP n V V fn fn N N N fn eV
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0
0 C. 0 0 C. O O O O O
OIA o0000 00000
x O. f4.41411 Pl fn cn fn fn In
a
�� o0000 00000
a .-1 .r .1 ., .. .4 .a .-1 ', .a
a
v v v v v v v v v v
m a N I n N n f n m n e n N n
P4 O N NO ri mm m 110.
1;14 ri414 OOOr10
O q dn.olnln -0enfneln
U
k El I m.aofra nnnoo,
U19 I rllnen V V IV mm Nfn
v o.I fnv,v,Infn I n U! U! n
C+. 00000 co, 0000
v v v v v v v v v v
b p`? I en d d en en en .0 m N m
U o 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000 00000
4 Q N N N N N N N N N N
W 0.
0. v v v v v v v v v v
m In an In In In Li In Lf In Li
O. o0000 00000
v v v v v v v v v v
Id a o000cm, 00000
fn 4 n v .a to V .f In In ltl v
P.
—4 W 0. m 1n m fn m el m V
.Q to O. O. mm m mtT tT [T
O O O O O O O O o 0
.I a N N N N N N N N N N
a oo00o OoOoo
v v v v v v v v v v
O O C. O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N
0. 0 N N N N N N N N N N
C4 0 e-1 .-f .-1 .-1 .i r4 .-1 r4 .4 .4
0. U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N
to N N N
NN NNN Na. P. 0."I
A. G. 94 P.P. f4 1 1 1 1
mm�nm nC494ta r
PO eT fn M W W C. PO M C. P7
a Pa " fq Ln Pa Po o .f C. Ln
m
92. o r-o1n fo 000.r fn
n n m m m a .-1 .-1 .-1 .4
zzzzz zzzzz
fn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
.i V %o m C. fV In m 14 rn
NIm r1m -0 V-0.0fn to
itit==2t vat 4t 0t eft
to to V1 to N to 71 Iq to to

i=-
rnfr0
>-1" o
Qc�ofD
z
t0
arn� L
io
n m0
on
za•v UZ ,
m—�•- o
UQ U
LO
CL 0 Vi a ¢
co
co
OD
Q
Cl)
N
J
a
O
Z
Q
Nz
_Z
W O
LL
W
U�
0
H
cev
r'N
W
OS
Z�
� -
of
a
U
ya
z Z
U
LL
3
-Io
~
CC
a =
Z S
f"
a
I
a Q
L1J
0
Q W
0
CO)
c
F
�Yf
COUN
U a)
CDC
p
�0
F-
n U
T
1D
^� �� In
cCi
` N
f ) a O
o�uiiillliii m
czX
J=_ LL
'c to
o
in
N CD
fn N
U C?^
w ` t m (p W
W U (y 00 z
M m0
rnzn.
U`
F 4 I
bVbVb farlOrhfo
co 4.0.4.0.0
VV.s.s v fn IA V In
a
d q b V V cob bb vo.4
N a .4 .4 N rt .i .i fV N h ri
a
El I CD. o0o0 00000
� ,y ri N .� rl .� .� r♦ rl .�
v v v v v v v v v v
EI P10l mInb PI V.4fDh
a
mo El OO OOO CO o 00
Ink,s r1 ri . f rl rl rl . l rr .a rl
v v v v v v v v v v
r1H 00000 00000
E. a 'i .i 'i ri 'i a .i ri .i rl
a
v v v v v v v v v v
M oP rl rl ri rl rl rl r-1 rl r-1 r-1
E• O O C. O O O O O O O
00000 10000o
v v v v v v v v v v
top, ,.oi rli tT tT 01 co co fa en
a
H
In a I N N N N N N N N N N
a v v v v v IJ v v v v
d I 1b41# ��""Nrp91.
a aI O0000 IooOoo
a + bb ul nb n f11 T1D fa
xa l . i N f� 1[ n I d l a d 1' I f' 1
fd oP rl rl r1 rl If rl .-1 rl rl rl
x 00000 00000
00000 00000
v v v v v v v v v v
co, 0000 00000
N N N N N N N N N N
0W Q N N N N N N N N N N
C4 O rl rl rl ri rl If ••i ri rl rl
a.C� 0 00 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N
N N N N N N a. V a 0. O.
w a a a a a 1 1 l l
1 1 1 l l 1 n n n n
nnnnn n1T 0101 c1
.4 /T 1T 1T W W Cf {1Q 154 -i 4 o 0 94
oa 90 oQ 1 90 0 In
CI. O V Pl
Olb OOOrI
co/D fn fT .-1 .•i rl rl
�z4szzx xzxxz
rl 'd b co O N In l f
r
49 PI 1f/ rl V V -0" 'd 1A N
p w 4C ife iL it to vi m m
N VJ N_y f7J V1y OJ 7JN
a
Q
U
F-
CC
W
U

APPENDIX 5: NORMALIZATION OF GEOCHEMICAL DATA REPORT

Normalization of Elemental Concentrations
for the Geochemical Transect at Site 31AN60,
Anson County, North Carolina
by
David S. Leigh, Ph.D.
Prepared for TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., July 24, 1998.
Ey

Introduction
Ten soil samples obtained from a transect across site 31AN60 at the base of the .plow
zone, along with three samples from within and around a feature, were submitted for particle size
and total carbon analysis in order to facilitate normalization of geochemical data from the site.
Typically, major and trace element concentrations tend to exhibit positive relationships with
percent clay and carbon because those soil constituents offer abundant cation exchange and
adsorption sites (McBride, 1994). Normalization of the elemental data removes inherent
covariance between natural soil characteristics and the element concentrations, allowing possible
anthropogenic influences to be seen. The normalization is done by establishing the statistical
relationship between particle size and/or carbon concentrations versus the element concentration
by linear regression techniques, and then calculating the residual value. The residual value is the
difference between the observed and predicted elemental concentration. The residual value can
then be attributed to non -soil influences such as ash, animal, and plant waste at the site. Some
elements may not require normalization. This report only provides normalization for
phosphorus, because the statistical analysis revealed that the normalization did not improve
correlations between elements and cultural activity areas for the other elements. In addition,
limited interpretation of the 31AN60 chemical data, including Feature 7, is provided.
Methods
The 13 soil samples were oven -dried and sieved to pass a 2 mm mesh to determine the
weight percentage of gravel (>2 mm particles). The < 2 mm fraction was then subjected to
particle size analysis of sand, silt, and clay by dispersing.a 45 g subsample in sodium
metaphosphate and using a the sieve and hydrometer technique described by Gee and Bauder
(1986). The percentage of sand was determined by the weight retained on a 0,063 mm sieve
following wet sieving and the percentage of clay was measured with a hydrometer from a 1 L
suspension. The percentage of silt was calculated by difference based on the measured sand an
clay fraction. The percentages of sand, silt, and clay were recalculated on the basis of the <0.177
r mm (80 mesh) fraction after sieving the sand fraction through a 0.177 mm sieve. The <0.177
mm recalculation was used in the analysis because that is the size fraction used in the elemental
concentrations measured by Chemex, Inc..
The concentrations of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur in <0.177 mm soil samples were
determined by dry -sieving the samples through 0.177 mm mesh and analysis with a Leco® CNS
analyzer at the University of Georgia. Other elemental concentrations and artifact abundance
3 values were provided by TRC Garrow Associates, Inc. The artifact concentrations indicate two
peaks, or activity areas, across the site on the sample transect. Only elements that were above
5• -
instrumental detection limits were used in this analysis, that is, "<" values were ignored.
Statistical analysis was made with the program Sigma Stat version 2.0, produced by
SPSS, Incorporated. Plotted lines on graphs made use of a smoothed spline interpolation.
M
kv
f

Results
Particle size and C, N, S measurements are presented in Appendix 1. The <0.177 min
soil property values of the 10 plowzone-base samples were correlated to elemental
concentrations by using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation (r-value) to look for
statistically significant relationships between soil properties and elemental concentrations. A
significance level (P Value) of 0.05 was used as the cut-off point to determine if a correlation
existed. The significantly correlated variables (P <0.05) are presented in Table 1 and the
correlation coefficients and probability levels are given in Appendix 2.
Table 1. Elements Significantly Correlated to Soil Properties at 31AN60S
Soil Property Significantly Correlated Elements* (P <0.05)
Artifact Density (#/m')
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
% Carbon
pH
Ba, -Sr, Zn, (possibly Ca)
-Cr, -Cu, -Fe, -K, -Mg, P, -V
Sr
Cr, Cu, Fe, -Hg, K, Mg, -P, V
P
Ca, -K, Mn
notes:
* A minus sign preceding the element indicates a negative correlation.
Statistically significant correlations are noted between artifact density versus barium
(Ba), strontium (Sr), and zinc (Zn) (Figures 1-3). These elements did not show significant
correlations with sand, clay, or carbon, and therefore do appear to require normalization. Lack of
a need for normalization may relate to the they fact that they are less apt to complex with organic
material like phosphorus. The negative correlation with strontium (Sr) is difficult to interpret and
may be spurious, particularly since there is very little range in Sr across the site (8-11 ppm).
However, the variation in Ba and Zn closely matches the activity areas represented by artifact
density and may be related to cultural activity at the site. Both Ba and Zn are trace elements that
are relatively abundant compared to other trace elements. Zinc is an essential plant
micronutrient, while Ba is not. Zinc is readily bioaccumulated in plants at a plant:soil ratio of
about 1:1 (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992, p. 69). Though not an essential micronutrient, Ba
is reported to be commonly present in plants (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992, p. 118).
Barium is rated as a rather immobile element in soils (McBride, 1994, p. 329) and is not apt to be
leached. It is possible that the Ba and Zn result from wood ash and other residue scattered on the
ground at the site. Ash tends to concentrate trace elements consumed by plants.
2
.:

It was thought that calcium (Ca) would bear a relationship to site activity areas because of
its abundance in shell, bone, and plant material. However, the correlation coefficients failed to
demonstrate a relationship. Lack of a relationship in this case may be due do past liming of the
field where the control sample (off site at 135 N) was taken, which resulted in twice the Ca
values compared to those measured on the site. Without the control sample a relatively good
match is apparent between the activity areas (artifact density) and Ca concentrations (Figure 4).
Correlations of elements with percent sand and percent clay are redundant, but they tend
to be slightly stronger with percent clay (Appendix 2). Thus, percent clay was chosen as the best
textural parameter to use for normalization. Carbon was statistically correlated with only one
element, phosphorus (P), and thus phosphorus was the only element normalized to the variance
of carbon in addition to clay. The variance of clay and carbon across the site is illustrated in
Figures 5 and 6.
Bivariate linear regression was applied to each element using clay (or carbon in the case
of P) as the independent variable to predict the element concentration. The predictive equations
are given with the regression equation output (Appendix 3). Predicted values were subtracted
from observed values to produce residual concentrations. The residual concentrations were then
subjected to the Pearson Product Moment Correlation to determine if they could be correlated to
the variation of artifact density (activity areas) along the sample transect. Surprisingly, none of
the residuals (normalized values) of the elements that were inherently correlated with clay (Cr,
Cu, Fe, -Hg, K, Mg, -P, V) (Table 1) were correlated with artifact density (Appendix 4). An
illustration of this lack of correlation for the raw data as well as normalized values is provided by
copper (Cu) (Figures 7 and 8). No plots of the other residuals were made because of the poor
correlations with artifact density. However, these residual values are provided in Appendix 1.
Phosphorus is generally considered to be a good geochemical indicator of past human
activity at archeological sites (Walker, 1992; Goffer, 1980), presumably because of its presence
in bone, plant, dung, and ash materials. Residual phosphorus based on the carbon
concentrations produced the strongest correlation with artifact density for phosphorus(r--0.52)
(Appendix 4; Figure 9), which was a significant improvement over the raw phosphorus
concentrations (Appendix 2; Figure 10) and produced a trend line that matched the variation in
artifact density better than the raw phosphorus concentrations (Figures 9 and 10). A multivariate
regression and normalization was tried for phosphorus, based on clay and carbon. Again, this did
not produce a statistically significant correlation with artifact density, but it did produce a trend
line with a good match to the artifact density (Figure 11). However, this multivariate
normalization is not viewed to be as good as the bivariate normalization with carbon (Figure 9)
because of the unusual negative correlation between clay and phosphorus in the raw data (Table
1, Appendix 2) that is inherent in the normalization model.
a_
W�

Comments on Feature 7
Soil samples from Feature 7 have less clay and slightly more sand than the surrounding
soil matrix, and the carbon concentrations in the feature are higher than the surrounding matrix
(Appendix 1). The normalization equations based on clay and carbon from the 10 samples along
the transect produce strongly negative residual phosphorus concentrations for the feature.
Barium concentrations are equivalent inside and outside the feature (40 ppm) and zinc
concentrations are slightly higher outside the feature compared to inside the feature. Such
relationships suggest that the feature may have involved very little time of exposure to human
activity.
Conclusions
These data suggest that Ba, Zn, and P are indicators of cultural activity. Barium and Zinc
do not appear to require normalization because of a lack of correlation to soil properties.
Phosphorus trends benefit from normalization, but other elements do not appear to benefit.
Calcium shows a possible correlation with activity areas, but is probably contaminated with
agricultural lime in the off -site sample, which skews the results. A low sample number (n=10)
is a possible explanation for the weak correlation of most elements. In addition, there is probable
error associated with the data used for normalization, because 8 of the 10 values are on -site, and
ideally more data are needed from off -site to derive a true background correlation from which to
analyze residuals relative to natural background.
References. Cited
Gee, G. W., and Bauder, J. W., 1986. Particle size analysis. In (A. Klute, ed.) Methods of Soil
Analysis: Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods, Second Edition. Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI., pp. 383-411.
Goffer, Z., 1980. Archeological Chemistry: A Sourcebook on the Applications of Chemistry to
Archeology. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Kabatai-Pendias, A., and Pendias, H., 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
McBride, M. B., 1994. Environmental Chemistry of Soils. Oxford University Press, New York.
Walker, R., 1992. Phosphate survey: method and Meaning. In (P. Spoerry, ed.) Geoprospection
in the Archeological Landscape. Bournemouth Polytechnic Oxbow Monograph 18, pp.
61-73. Exeter, The Short Run Press.
0

FIGURES
v,
"o

31 AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Barium
55
50
45
40
0
0
35
30
0
25
20
500
400
Q
100
15 0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
- q— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
—� Ba (ppm)
Figure 1. Barium transect.
z

31AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Strontium
14
13
12
5
U
9
500
400
a�
w
� u
300
coo
a�
a
— 200
u
w
Q
100
8
7 0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
--p— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
—� Sr (ppm)
Figure 2. Strontium transect.

w
A
31 AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Zinc
28
26
24
16
14
500
400
100
12 1 1 1 1 1 --100
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
—�— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
—i•— Zn (ppm)
Figure 3. Zinc transect.

31AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Calcium
0.09
0.08
0.07
o _ 0.06
0
i 0.05
a
v
c 0.04
'i
0.03
0.02
500
400
L
C�
r.+
�vI
�i
300
0
0
a'
L
a�
a
200
u
Q
100
0.01 ������ - - 1 , � 0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
gyp— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
—a— Ca %
Figure 4. Calcium transect.
Ii.

30
28
26
24
0
22
0
w
20
18
0
u
16
14
12
10
31AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Clay
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
�— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
—� % Clay
Figure 5. Clay transect.
F7
500
400
100
0

1.05
1.00
0.95
0
c 0.90
0.85
U
0.80
0.75
0.70
31AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Carbon
500
400
100
0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
�— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
C %
Figure 6. Carbon transect.

31AN60 Geochemical Transect
of Copper
8
7
E 6
500
400
a�
O
300
CS"
W
i.
O
200
C.�
12
El
3
100
2 '0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135
North Coordinate
—p— Number of Artifacts Per Square Meter
—— Cu (ppm)
Figure 7. Copper transect.

APPENDIX 1

I -Whole --I I ------
-------< 2 mm Fraction-----------
I
Sample N. Coord.
Artifact #
% > 2mm % Sand
% Silt
% Clay
% >0.177 mm
1 Fea. 7 N.
n.a.
11.7
61
32
8
43
2 Fea. 7 S.
n.a.
14.3
61
31
8
45
3 Out Fea. 7
n.a.
12.1
59
29
12
49
31 70
75
2.2
58
31
12
35
34 74
90
0.5
49
32
19
33
36 80
230
4.0
50
34
16
35
38 85
160
3.7
57
32
11
41
40 86
150
7.6
55
33
11
40
42 90
155
3.5
60
31
9
38
45 100
450
16.1
66
27
7
41
48 101
360
10.3
65
26
8
47
51 110
90
7.8
54
32
13
33
53 135
1
2.9
43
46
11
24
0.177
mm Fraction --I-<
0.177
mm Fraction -I
Sample N. Coord.
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
% C
% S
% N
1 Fea. 7 N.
30.56
55.72
13.72
1.31
0.05
0.002
2 Fea. 7 S.
28.95
55.86
15.19
1.17
0.04
0.005
3 Out Fea. 7
21.01
56.24
22.75
0.76
0.05
0.012
31 70
34.35
47.57
18.07
0.82
0.04
0.011
34 74
23.78
48.14
28.08
0.90
0.05
0.01
36 80
23.69
52.47
23.84
0.72
0.03
0.008
38 85
27.16
54.05
18.79
0.90
0.03
0.012
40 86
25.84
55.67
18.49
0.91
0.03
0.009
42 90
34.75
49.91
15.35
0.90
0.04
0.007
45 100
41.78
45.88
12.33
0.96
0.04
0.008
48 101
35.01
49.30
15.69
0.95
0.04
0.012
51 110
31.80
48.33
19.86
1.02
0.03
0.008
53 135
25.49
59.89
14.62
0.89
0.03
0.002
Residual Phosphorus Values
based on based on based on
I
--.Other
Residual Values----
-- -
---I
Sample % clay % carbon clay & carbon
Cr res.
Cu res.
Fe res.
Hg res.
K res.
Mg res.
V res.
1 -0.99
-44.04
-38.51
-2.45
-0.62
-0.14
-10.41
-0.0103
-0.0026
-2.05
2 2.08
-26.06
-22.63
-2.84
-0.98
-0.17
-8.13
-0.0127
-0.0046
-3.55
3 -12.16
-3.41
-1.38
-2.82
-2.83
-0.17
-11.44
-0.0248
-0.0247
-3.16
31 -11.92
-1.11
-4.09
-0.59
-0.69
-0.09
-3.68
0.0027
0.0016
-2.55
34 8.95
-11.39
2.65
-0.21
-0.14
-0.05
1.81
-0.0033
-0.0017
0.00
36 -9.89
1.73
4.13
-0.10
-0.10
0.04
-4.75
0.0035
0.0039
0.46
38 -0.42
-1.39
-0.89
0.22
0.14
0.04
-12.56
0.0016
0.0006
-0.80
40 -11.04
-12.67
-12.31
0.30
0.21
0.11
6.97
0.0021
0.0110
0.31
42 -7.59
-1.39
-5.91
-0.88
-0.02
-0.05
2.11
-0.0029
-0.0048
-1.61
45 6.11
10.91
3.80
-0.09
-0.28
0.02
-2.56
0.0019
-0.0008
0.43
48 13.12
12.19
9.68
-0.97
-1.10
-0.11
2.64
-0.0035
-0.0053
-0.73
51 11.81
-6.80
-1.10
0.94
0.88
0.06
9.09
-0.0001
-0.0108
1.84
53 0.89
9.90
4.01
1.31
1.16
0.06
0.98
-0.0018
0.0062
2.64

APPENDIX 2

Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 09:43:57
Cell Contents:
Correlation Coefficient
P Value
Number of Samples
% Silt
% Clay
C %
Artifact #
pH
Al %
Ba (ppm)
% Sand -0.649
-0.702
0.445
0.614
0.250
-0.330
0.247
0.0423
0.0236
0.197
0.0590
0.486
0.352
0.491
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
% Silt
-0.0860
-0.234
-0.471
0.368
` 0.242
-0.0239
0.813
0.516
0.170
0.296
0.501
0.948
10
10
10
10
10
10
% Clay
-0.364
-0.363
-0.672
0.206
-0.301
0.300
0.302
0.0334
0.568
0.398
10
10
10
10
10
C %
0.151
0.0566
0.197
-0.0833
0.676
0.877
0.585
0.819
10
10
10
10 -
Artifact #
0.168
0.266
0.660
0.642
0.458
0.0380
10
10
10
pH
0.201
0.583
0.578
0.0768
10
10
Al %
0.455
0.187
10
Ba (ppm)
Ca %

Lj;
Co (ppm)
Cr (ppm)
Cu (ppm)
Fe %
Hg (ppb)
K%
Mg %
Mn (ppm)
N%
Ni (ppm)
P (PPm)
Pb (ppm)
S%
Sr (ppm)

V (ppm)
Zn (ppm)
Ca %
Co (ppm)
Cr (ppm)
Cu (ppm)
Fe %
Hg (ppb)
K %
% Sand
-0.309
-0.248
-0.817
-0.819
-0.811
0.559
-0.669
0.384
0.490
0.00391
0.00374
0.00446
0.0933
0.0343
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
• Silt
0.622
0.439
0.229
0.223
0.197
0.0258
-0.0691
0.0548
0.205
0.524
0.535
0.585
0.944
0.850
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
• Clay
-0.177
-0.0857
0.855
0.864
0.877
-0.756
0.941
0.624
0.814
0.00161
0.00128
0.000870 0.0115
0.0000504
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
C %
-0.225
0.0725
-0.202
-0.214
-0.294
0.604
-0.496
0.532
0.942
0.577
0.553
0.409
0.0644
0.145
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Artifact #
-0.272
0.194
-0.559
-0.615
-0.403
0.169
-0.302
0.448
0.592
0.0932
0.0585
0.248
0.641
0.396
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
pH
0.803
0.0755
-0.462
-0.494
-0.571
0.515
-0.703
0.00518
0.836
0.179
0.147
0.0848
0.128
0.0232
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Al %
0.299
0.598
0.316
0.318
0.368
0.00580
0.0767
0.401
0.0678
0.374
0.371
0.295
0.987
0.833
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
r

Ba (ppm)
0.325 0.385
-0.477
-0.496
-0.380
0.204
-0.368
0.359 0.272
0.163
0.145
0.278
0.572
0.296
10 10
10
10
10
10
10
Ca %
0.0720
0.101
0.0722
-0.0500
0.0644
-0.224
0.843
0.782
0.843
0.891
0.860
0.534
10
10
10
10
10
10
Co (ppm)
-0.0831
0.000
0.0931
0.000
-0.149
0.819
1.000
0.798
1.000
0.680
10
10
10
10
10
Cr (ppm)
0.976
0.948
-0.586
0.834
0.00000141
0.0000309
0.0748
0.00268
10
10
10
10
Cu (ppm)
0.940
-0.569
0.813
0.0000539
0.0858
0.00423
10
10
10
Fe %
-0.630
0.901
0.0507
0.000373
10
10
Hg (ppb)
-0.802
0.00528
10
K%
Mg%
Mn (ppm)
N%

Ni (ppm)
P (PPm)
Pb (ppm)
S%
Sr (ppm)
V (ppm)
Zn (ppm)
% Sand
% Silt
E _ % Clay
C%
Mg %
Mn. (ppm)
N %
-0.829
-0.0352
0.131
0.00300
0.923
0.719
10
10
10
0.409
0.623
-0.510
0.241
0.0542
0.132
10
10
10
0.703
-0.537
0.306
0.0232
0.109
0.389
10
10
10
-0.629
0.00437
0.0311
0.0512
0.990
0.932
Ni (ppm) P (ppm) Pb (ppm)
0.268
0.657
0.318
0.455
0.0391
0.371
10
10
10
0.164
-0.166
-0.289
0.651
0.648
0.418
10
10
10
-0.503
-0.705
-0.147
0.138
0.0227
0.686
10
10
10
0.389
0.761
-0.0726
0.266
0.0105
0.842
S %
0.155
0.670
10
-0.513
0.129
10
0.278
0.437
10
0.0237
0.948

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Artifact #
-0.379
-0.0234
-0.153
0.570
0.450
0.401
0.342
0.280
0.949
0.672
0.0853
0.192
0.251
0.334
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
pH
-0.276
0.946
-0.161
0.315
0.540
-0.184
-0.665
0.440
0.0000349
0.658
0.376
0.107
0.610
0.0359
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Al %
0.176
0.336
-0.361
0.578
0.179
-0.232
-0.296
0.627
0.343
0.306
0.0801
0.621
0.518
0.406
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Ba (ppm)
-0.0276
0.495
0.0404
0.511
0.282
-0.217
-0.0657
0.940
0.146
0.912
0.131
0.429
0.547
0.857
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Ca %
0.209
0.881
-0.101
-0.0478
0.114
-0.411
-0.758
0.562
0.000753
0.782
0.896
0.754
0.238
0.0110
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Co (ppm)
0.135
0.241
-0.517
0.711
0.000
-0.441
-0.0800
0.711
0.502
0.126
0.0211
1.000
0.203
0.826
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cr (ppm)
0.689
-0.265
0.0311
-0.449
-0.555
-0.123
-0.0771
0.0275
0.458
0.932
0.193
0.0961
0.735
0.832
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cu (ppm)
0.655
-0.281
0.0106
-0.407
-0.604
-0.215
-0.132
0.0397
0.432
0.977
0.243
0.0647
0.552
0.717
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Fe %
0.773
-0.373
-0.0929
-0.299
-0.681
-0.0700
0.0268
0.00871
0.288
0.799
0.402
0.0302
0.848
0.941
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
In

Hg (ppb)
-0.629
0.442
-0.193
0.554
0.658
0.0963
-0.402
0.0515
0.201
0.593
0.0969
0.0386
0.791
0.250
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
K %
0.772
-0.594
0.165
-0.538
-0.802
0.0632
0.306
0.00886
0.0700
0.649
0.108
0.00528
0.862
0.390
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Mg %
-0.105
0.0610
-0.370
-0.824
-0.256
0.0302
0.772
0.867
0.293
0.00336
0.475
0.934
10
10
10
10
10
10 .
Mn (ppm)
-0.295
0.350
0.410
-0.292
-0.755
0.407
0.321
0.240
0.413
0.0116
10
10
10
10
10
N %
-0.637
-0.0729
-0.345
0.393
0.0474
0.841
0.328
0.261
10
10
10
10
Ni (ppm)
0.481
0.0585
-0.178
0.159
0.873
0.622
10
10
10
P (ppm)
0.103
-0.129
0.777
0.722
10
10
Pb (ppm)
0.223
0.536
10
S%
Sr (ppm)
t

V (ppm)
Zn (ppm)
Sr (ppm)
V (ppm) Zn (ppm)
% Sand
-0.587
-0.737
0.495
0.0743
0.0150
0.146
10
10
10
% Silt
0.647
0.259
-0.421
0.0431
0.469
0.226
10
10
10
% Clay
0.163
0.722
-0.255
0.652
0.0183
0.478
10
10
10
C %
-0.281
-0.0735
0.0443
0.431
0.840
0.903
10
10
10
Artifact #
-0.704
-0.378
0.874
0.0232
0.282
0.000938
10
10
10
pH
0.405
-0.221
0.0833
0.246
0.540
0.819
10
10
10
Al %
0.0522
0.594
0.218
0.886
0.0703
0.545
10
10
10
Ba (ppm)
0.000
-0.251
0.370
1.000
0.484
0.292
10
10
10
Ca %
0.794
0.248
-0.269
0.00604
0.489
0.452
10
10
10
Co (ppm)
0.000
0.000
-0.0531
1.000
1.000
0.884
10
10
10
Cr (ppm)
0.372
0.924
-0.346
0.290
0.000134
0.328
10
10
10
Cu (ppm)
0.374
0.892
-0.426
0.288
0.000519
0.220

10
10
10
Fe %
0.222
0.861
-0.238
0.538
0.00136
0.507
10
10
10
Hg (ppb)
-0.111
-0.376
0.0949
0.760
0.285
0.794
10
10
10
K %
0.0891
0.662
-0.140
0.807
0.0371
0.701
10
10
10
Mg %
0.522
0.556
-0.377
0.122
0.0951
0.283
10
10
10
Mn (ppm)
0.553
-0.0289
-0.0768
0.0976
0.937
0.833
10
10
10
N %
0.198
-0.106
-0.326
0.583
0.771
0.358
10
10
10
Ni (ppm)
-0.389
-0.187
0.433
0.267
0.605
0.212
10
10
10
P (ppm)
-0.282
-0.319
0.387
0.430
0.369
0.269
10
10
10
Pb (ppm)
-0.657
-0.0788
0.741
0.0391
0.829
0.0143
10
10
10
S %
-0.561
-0.271
0.241
0.0919
0.449
0.502
10
10
10
Sr (ppm)
0.333
-0.759
0.347
0.0108
10
10
V (ppm)
-0.154
0.672
10
Zn (ppm)

The pair(s) of variables with positive correlation coefficients and P values below 0.050 tend to increase together. For the pairs with
negative correlation coefficients and P values below 0.050, one variable tends to decrease while the other increases. For pairs with P
values greater than 0.050, there is no significant relationship between the two variables.
h"

APPENDIX 3
L-s

Linear Regression
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:20:38
Cr (ppm) = 3.857 + ( 0.262 * % Clay)
N=10.000
R = 0.855 Rsqr = 0.731 Adj Rsqr = 0.698
Standard Error of Estimate = 0.780
Coefficient Std. Error t
P
Constant 3.857 1.067 3.614
0.007
% Clay 0.262 0.0561 4.665
0.002
Analysis of Variance:
DF SS MS F
P
Regression 1 13.235 13.235 21.762
0.002
Residual 8 4.865 0.608
Total 9 18.100 2.011
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.688)
Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.384)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.921
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 8.584
2 11.203
3 10.094
4 8.773
5 8.694
6 7.873
7 7.083
8 7.962
9 9.053
10 7.682

Linear Regression
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:19:53
Cu (ppm) = 0.259 + ( 0.245 * % Clay)
N=10.000
R = 0.864 Rsqr = 0.746 Adj Rsqr = 0.714
Standard Error of Estimate = 0.704
Coefficient Std. Error t
P
Constant 0.259 0.964 0.269
0!795
% Clay 0.245 0.0506 4.843
0.001
Analysis of Variance:
DF SS MS F
P
Regression 1 11.632 11.632 23.451
0.001
Residual 8 3.968 0.496
Total 9 15.600 1.733
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.445)
Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.292)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.933
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 4.692
zi 2 7.147
3 6.107
4 4.868
5 4.795
6 4.024
7 3.284
8 4.108
9 5.131
10 3.845

Linear Regression
Fe % = 0.494 + ( 0.0287 * % Clay)
N = 10.000
R = 0.877 Rsqr = 0.769 Adj Rsqr = 0.740
Standard Error of Estimate = 0.078
Coefficient Std. Error t P
Constant 0.494 0.106 4.655 0.002
% Clay 0.0287 0.00558 5.154 <0.001
Analysis of Variance:
DF SS MS F P
Regression 1 0.160 0.160 26.567 <0.001
Residual 8 0.0481 0.00601
Total 9 0.208 0.0231
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.200)
Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.733)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.950
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 1.013
2 1.301
3 1.179
4 1.034
5 1.025
6 0.935
7 0.848
8 0.945
9 1.065
10 0.914
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:21:46

Linear Regression
Hg (ppb) = 51.633 - (1.547 * % Clay)
N = 10.000
R = 0.756 Rsqr = 0.571 Adj Rsqr = 0.517
Standard Error of Estimate = 6.590
Coefficient Std. Error t
Constant 51.633 9.018 5.726
% Clay -1.547 0.474 -3.264
Analysis of Variance:
DF SS MS F
Regression 1 462.562 462.562 10.651
Residual 8 347.438 43.430
Total 9 810.000 90.000
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.564)
Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.199)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.742
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 23.684
2 8.201
3 14.759
4 22.570
5 23.034
6 27.891
7 32.562
8 27.365
9. 20.915
10 29.020
P
<0.001
0.011
P
0.011
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:22:44

Linear Regression
K % =-0.00164 + ( 0.00160 * % Clay)
N = 10.000
R = 0.941 Rsqr = 0.885 Adj Rsqr = 0.871
Standard Error of Estimate = 0.003
Coefficient
Std. Error
Constant-0.00164
0.00388
% Clay 0.00160
0.000204
Analysis of Variance:
DF SS
MS
Regression 1 0.000496
0.000496
Residual 8 0.0000645
0.00000806
Total 9 0.000560
0.0000622
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.186)
Constant Variance Test: Passed
(P = 0.681)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.996
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 0.0273
2 0.0433
3 0.0365
4 0.0284
5 0.02.80
6 0.0229
7 0.0181
8 0.0235
9 0.0302
10 0.0218
t P
-0.421 0.685
7.843 <0.001
F P
61.510 <0.001
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:23:45

Linear Regression
Mg % = 0.0144 + (0.00133 * % Clay)
N = 10.000
R. = 0.703 Rsqr = 0.495 Adj Rsqr = 0.432
Standard Error of Estimate = 0.007
Coefficient
Std. Error
Constant 0.0144
0.00903
% Clay 0.00133
0.000475
Analysis of Variance:
DF SS
MS
Regression 1 0.000341
0.000341
Residual 8 0.000349
0.0000436
Total 9 0.000690
0.0000767
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.820)
Constant Variance Test: Passed
(P = 0.973)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.638
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 0.0384
2 0.0517
3 0.0461
4 0.0394
5 0.0390
6 0.0348
7 0.0308
8 0.0353
9 0.0408
10 0.0338
t P
1.594 0.150
2.799 0.023
F P
7.834 0.023
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:24:35

N
Linear Regression
P (ppm) = 109.596 - (2.085 * % Clay)
N = 10.000
R = 0.705 Rsqr = 0.497 Adj Rsqr = 0.434
Standard Error of Estimate = 10.305
Coefficient Std. Error t
Constant 109.596 14.101 7.772
% Clay -2.085 0.741 -2.813
Analysis of Variance:
DF SS MS F
Regression 1 840.469 840.469 7.915
Residual 8 849.531 106.191
Total 9 1690.000 187.778
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.414)
Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.512)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.641
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 71.922
2 51.052
3 59.892
4 70.420
5 71.046
6 77.592
7 83.889
8 76.884
9 68.190
10 79.114
P
<0.001
0.023
P
0.023
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:26:15

Linear Regression
P (ppm) =-44.201 + (128.430 * C %)
N = 10.000
R = 0.761 Rsqr = 0.580 Adj Rsqr = 0.527
Standard Error of Estimate = 9.421
Coefficient Std. Error t
Constant-44.201 34.799 -1.270
C % 128.430 38.653 3.323
Analysis of Variance:
DF SS MS F
Regression 1 979.918 979.918 11.040
Residual 8 710.082 88.760
Total 9 1690.000 187.778
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.529)
Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.116)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.753
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 61.111
2 71.385
3 48.268
4 71.385
5 72.670
6 71.385
7 79.091
8 77.807
9 86.797
10 70.101
b
P
0.240
0.010
P
0.010
Wednesday, July 22, 1998, 15:52:09

Multiple Linear Regression
P (ppm) = 9.985 + (98.113 * C %) - (1.458 * % Clay)
N = 10.000
R = 0.889 Rsqr = 0.791 Adj Rsqr = 0.731
Standard Error of Estimate = 7.107
Coefficient
Std. Error
t
Constant
9.985
33.246
0.300
C %
98.113
31.313
3.133
% Clay
-1.458
0.549
-2.656
Analysis of
Variance:
DF SS
MS
F
Regression
2 1336.394
668.197
13.228
Residual
7 353.606
50.515
Total
9 1690.000
187.778
Column
SSIncr SSMarg
C %
979.918 495.925
% Clay
356.477 356.477
Durbin -Watson Statistic = 1.458
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.553)
Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.865)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.963
Wednesday, July 22, 1998, 15:58:27
P VIF
0.773
0.017 1.153
0.033 1.153
P
0.004

Linear Regression
V (ppm) = 9.313 + ( 0.345 * % Clay)
N = 10.000
R = 0.722 Rsqr = 0.522 Adj Rsqr = 0.462
Standard Error of Estimate = 1.624
Coefficient Std. Error t
P
Constant 9.313 2.222 4.192
0.003
% Clay 0.345 0.117 2.955
0.018
Analysis of Variance:
P
DF SS MS F
Regression 1 23.014 23.014 8.731
0.018
Residual 8 21.086 2.636
Total 9 44.100 4.900
Normality Test: Passed (P = 0.424)
Constant Variance Test: Passed (P = 0.292)
Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.675
Regression Diagnostics:
Row Predicted
1 15.548
2 19.001
3 17.538
4 15.796
5 15.692
6 14.609
7 13.567
8 14.726
9 16.165
10 14.357
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:27:39

APPENDIX 4
9

Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Thursday, July 23, 1998, 10:51:58
Cell Contents:
Correlation Coefficient
P Value
Number of Samples
Ba (ppm)
Zn (ppm)
Cr res-c
Cu res-c
Fe res-c
Hg res-c
Artifact # 0.660
0.874
-0.479
-0.597
-0.176
-0.161
0.0380
0.000938
0.162
0.0684
0.627
0.657
10
10
10
10
10
10
Ba (ppm)
0.370
-0.425
-0.468
-0.242
-0.0359
0.292
0.221
0.172
0.500
0.922
10
10
10
10
10
Zn (ppm)
-0.247
-0.408
-0.0315
-0.149
0.491
0.242
0.931
0.682
10
10
10
10
Cr res-c
0.909
0.794
0.176
0.000273 0.00612
0.626
10
10
10
Cu res-c
0.753
0.252
0.0120
0.483
10
10
0.102
Fe res-c
0.780
10

Hg res-c
K res-c
Mg res-c
P res-c
W.
P res. IOm
P res. IObi
V res-c
y

K res-c
Mg res-c
P res-c
P res.10m
P res. 10bi
V res-c
Artifact #
0.117
-0.173
0.273
0.399
0.516
-0.167
0.748
0.632
0.445
0.253
0.127
0.645
10
10
10
10
10
10
Ba (ppm)
-0.250
0.259
0.0989
0.399
0.534
-0.0490
0.486
0.470
0.786
0.254
0.112
0.893
10
10
10
10
10
10
Zn (ppm)
0.295
-0.279
0.293
0.515
0.545
0.0437
0.409
0.436
0.412
0.128
0.103
0.905
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cr res-c
0.170
0.238
0.132
-0.0661
-0.106
0.854
0.638
0.508
0.717
0.856
0.771
0.00167
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cu res-c
0.00487
0.134
0.0151
-0.231
-0.218
0.769
0.989
0.712
0.967
0.521
0.545
0.00925
10
10
10
10
10
10
Fe res-c
0.467
0.458
-0.184
-0.351
-0.262
0.686
0.173
0.183
0.612
0.320
0.465
0.0286
10
10
10
10
10
10
Hg res-c
-0.409
-0.209
0.270
-0.220
-0.294
0.376
0.240
0.563
0.451
0.541
0.409
0.284
10
10
10
10
10
10

K res-c
0.458 -0.575
-0.318
-0.0996
-0.0757
0.183 0.0818
0.370
0.784
0.835
10 10
10
10
10
Mg res-c
-0.651
-0.342
-0.0956
0.0975
0.0414
0.334
0.793
0.789
10
10
10
10
P res-c
0.645
0.258
0.389
0.0440
0.472
0.266
10
10
10
P res. 1Om
0.706
0.254
0.0226
0.479
10
10
P res. IObi
0.103
0.777
10
V res-c
The pair(s) of variables with positive correlation coefficients and P values below 0.050 tend to increase together. For the pairs
with negative correlation coefficients and P values below 0.050, one variable tends to decrease while the other increases. For
pairs with P values greater than 0.050, there is no significant relationship between the two variables.
c-
t

APPENDIX 6: RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS REPORT

REPORT OF RADIOCARBON DATING ANALYSES
FOR: Ms. Tami Wi 11 adsen DATE RECEIVED:
Garrow & Associates, Inc. DATE REPORTED:
March 16, 1998
April 17, 1998
Sample Data Measured C13/C12 Conventional
C14 Age Ratio C14 Age (*)
Beta-116314 370 +/- 60 BP -26.7 o/oo 350 +/- 60 BP
SAMPLE #: 31AN60F7
ANALYSIS: radiometric -standard
MATERIAL/PRETREATMENT:(wood): acid/alkali/acid
NOTE: It is important to read the calendar calibration information
and to use the calendar calibrated results (reported separately) when
interpreting these results in AD/BC terms.
I
Dates are reported as RCYBP (radiocarbon years before present, Measured C13/C12 ratios were calculated relative to the PDB-1
"present" = 1950A.D.). By International convention, the modern international standard and the RCYBP ages were normalized to
reference standard was 95% of the C14 content of the National -25 per mil. If the ratio and age are accompanied by an ('), then the
E , Bureau of Standards' Oxalic Acid & calculated using the Libby C14 C13/C12 value was estimated, based on values typical of the
half life (5568 years). Quoted errors represent 1 standard deviation material type. The quoted results are NOT calibrated to calendar
statistics (68% probability) & are based on combined measurements years. Calibration to calendar years should be calculated using
of the sample, background, and modern reference standards. the Conventional C14 age.

CALIBRATION OF RADIOCARBON AGE TO CALENDAR YEARS
(Variables:C13/C12=-26.7:lab mult.=1)
Laboratory Number: Beta-116314
Conventional radiocarbon age: 350 f 60 BP
Calibrated results: cat AD 1435 to 1665
(2 sigma, 95% probability)
Intercept data:
Intercepts of radiocarbon age
with calibration curve:
1 sigma calibrated results:
(68 /o probability)
cal AD 1515 and
cal AD 1585 and
cal AD 1625
cal AD 1460 to 1645
350 # 60 SP L1000
600
500
$ 400
m
a
o�
C 300
a
i
U
u
0
v
200
100
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
cal AO
References:
Pretoria Calibration Curve for Short Lived Samples
Vogel, J. C., Fads. A., Visser, E. and Becker, B., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(1), p73-86
A Simplified Approach to Calibrating C14 Dates
Talma, A. S. and Vogel, J. C., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(2), p317-322
Calibration -1993
Stuiver, Al.. Long, A., Kra, R. S. and Devine, J. N1., 1993, Radiocarbon 35(1)
Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory
4985 S.6Y. 74th Court, Miami, Florida 33155 w Tel: [phone] ■ Fax: [phone] a E-mail: betaCradiocarbon.eom

APPENDIX 7: OXIDIZABLE CARBON RATIO ANALYSIS REPORT

Archaeology Consulting Team; Inc:
S7 River Road • 'Si&e.-1p20-
Essex, Uermorrt -05452-
,.(802�7) p792V 13ryry
�,,'�. - :J" f 4 w ; •�r ,�. � "'.' �,Hl kY i r c'. � ry � T ! ...'
• � � � , :. .' ti /'.T'�'Ea •wy. .# s t � yvxsS�s �.at•�x _ + .. ^:..{ i ...3 =;, a
�i'� �.S � x"!� n'k�nr. �+ t �rt. -i..�'��,�i+'N_.3S`wl-,- � '•'kiL �, i ::i"s, � �� � '
t ..
March 2, 1998
Mr. Joel Gunn
Garrow and Associates
6340 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 200
Chapple Hill, NC 27514
Dear Mr. Gunn:
Thank you for sending us the soil sample from site designated 31-AN-60 for
OCRDATE analysis. This sample was received on February 2, 1998. Prior to our
analyses, we screened the samples through a 2mm-meshed screen to remove
any cultural material. The coarse fraction found in these samples is being
returned to you for further study. The OCRDATE analyses were conducted in
accordance with the procedures outlined in:
Frink, D.
1992 The Chemical Variability of Carbonized Organic Matter Through Time.
Archaeology of Eastern North America, Vol. 20:67-79.
using the data format and formula as presented in:
- Frink, D.
1994 The Oxidizable Carbon Ratio (OCR): A Proposed Solution to Some of the
Problems Encountered with Radiocarbon Data. North American Arch aeolog is.
Vol.15 (#1).
�,
w:

The results of the OCR analyses for your sample is presented on the separate
computer printout. The bottom line OCRDATE has been rounded to the nearest
year. Also, the expression of results has been adjusted to "years before
present" —defined as 1950, to correspond with 14C radiocarbon data. For
example, your sample (ACT #3134) should read OCRDATE: 2555 ± 76 YBP.
Further rounding may be prudent (e.g., 2530 ± 80 YBP).
I hope that the OCRDATE data provided will be helpful in your evaluation of this
site. If you have further questions on the OCR procedure, please don't hesitate
to give us a call. To aid us in improving this dating technique, we would
appreciate it if you would send us information on how the OCRoATE corresponds
to other data classes for these samples.
would also like to invite you to visit the OCR Carbon Dating Web -Page where
we will be publishing the latest infromation on the OCR procedure:
http://members.aol.com/dsfrink/ocr/ocrpage.htm
Sincerely,
�5
Douglas S. Frink

Calculated OCR DATE. Report
For TRC Garrow & Associates, Inc
03-Mar-98
J
f
OXIDIZABLE CAkjjoN RATIO
Sample Id: _ _ ACT # 3134
Site Id M 31-AN-60
Location: 1i
_ Feature Type`_ _ Cultural!
Feature Designation: _ � ,
i Sample Recieved:• _ _ _ _ _2/2/98'.
Calculated OCR DATE:1 iBP(1950) +I- 76;

ICI
w—i
in
coo o I
w 91!
O: N
N fD i
N i
co ?% T O_
m rl 7 ; -
m N I m
N
� � I
CNfl T
E-

APPENDIX 8: ARTIFACT CATALOG

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E
#
Level (cm)
Stratum
Total Material
(g) Artifact
Comments
13
4 65
ml
1
0-15
1
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
13
4 65
ml
1
0-15
1
1 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
13
4 65
m2
1
0-15
1
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
13
4 65
m3
2
15-25
11
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
13
4 65
m3
2
15-25
11
1 Rhyolite
0.I Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
13
4 65
m4
2
15-25
11
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
13
4 65
m5
2
15-25
li
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
13
4 65
m6
3
25-30
11
1 Quartz
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
14
4 84
m7
1
0-10
1
1 Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
14
4 84
m8
1
0-10
1
2 Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
21
72 85
a9
1
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
5.1 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
Impact and
transverse fractures
21
72 85
m10
1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
5.4 Fire cracked rock
21
72 85
ml 1
1
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
0.8 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
21
72 85
m12
1
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Secondary flake fragment, I-2 cm
21
72 85
m13
1
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
21
72 85
m13
1
0-I4
1
l Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
21
72 85
m13
1
0-14
1
9 Rhyolite
3.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
21
72 85
m13
1
0-14
I
1 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
21
72 85
m13
1
0-14
1
4 Rhyolite
4.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
21
72 85
m14
1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
0.4 Tertiary blade flake, 1-2 cm
21
72 85
m15
1
0-14
1
3 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
21
72 85
m15
1
0-14
1
13 Rhyolite
3.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
21
72 85
m15
1
0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
1.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
k; 21
72 85
m15
I
0-I4
1
1 Rhyolite
8.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 4-5 cm
21
72 85
m16
1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
21
72 85
m16
1
0-14
1
8 Rhyolite
3.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
21
72 85
m16
1
0-14
1
4 Quartz
1.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
21
72 85
m16
1
0-14
1
5 Rhyolite
8.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
21
72 85
m16
1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
1.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
21
72 85
m16
1
0-14
I
3 Rhyolite
13.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
21
72 85
m17
2
14-19
11
1 Rhyolite
2.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
21
72 85
m18
2
14-19
If
I Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m 19
1
6-21
1
1 Quartzite
57.9 Fire cracked rock
could be "other"
material
57
72 115
m19
1
6-21
1
6 Quartz
121.9 Fire cracked rock
57
72 115
m20
1
6-21
1
2 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
57
72 115
m20
I
6-21
1
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
57
72 115
m20
1
6-21
1
6 Rhyolite
1.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m21
1
6-21
1
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
57
72 115
m2l
1
6-21
1
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
57
72 115
m2l
1
6-21
1
6 Rhyolite
1.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m22
1
6-21
1
2 Quartz
2.3 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m23
1
6-21
1
2 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
57
72 115
m23
I
6-21
1
-3 Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m23
1
6-21
1
7 Quartz
6.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m23
1
6-21
1
3 Rhyolite
6.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
57
72 115
m24
2
21-35
IA
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
57
72 115
m24
2
21-35
IA
1 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m25
2
21-35
IA
2 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m25
2
21-35
IA
l Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
a26
-
17-30
Feature 7
1 Rhyolite
37.2 Biface, Stage 2 distal fragment
Hinge and
transverse fractures
57
72 115
m27
-
Floatation
Feature 7
1 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
57
72 115
m28
-
Floatation
Feature 7
3 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I crrt
57
72 115
m28
-
Floatation
Feature 7
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
22
73 85
m29
1
+2-7
1
1 Rhyolite
1.4 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
22
73 85
m30
1
+2-7
I
1 Rhyolite
0.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
22
73 85
m3l
1
+2-7
1
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <l cm
22
73 85
m3l
1
+2-7
1
2 t Rhyolite
7.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
22
73 85
m3l
1
+2-7
1
4 Rhyolite
7.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E
#
Level (cm)
Stratum
Total Material
(g) Artifact
Comments
22
73 85
m32
1
+2-7
1
3
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <l cm
22
73 85
m32
1
+2-7
1
14
Rhyolite
5.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
22
73 85
m32
1
+2-7
I
4
Rhyolite
4.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
22
73 85
m33
1
+2-7
1
1
Quartz
1.6 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
22
73 85
m34
I
+2-7
1
1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
22
73 85
m34
1
+2-7
1
11
Rhyolite
3.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
22
73 85
m34
1
+2-7
1
1
Quartz
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
22
73 85
m34
1
+2-7
1
5
Rhyolite
10.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
22
73 85
m34
1
+2-7
I
2
Rhyolite
10.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
55
73 115
a35
1
0-20
1
1
Rhyolite
6.5 Projectile point, Gypsy Stemmed
55
73 115
p36
1
0-20
1
1
Pottery
6.7 Badin/Yadkin indeterminate, sand
temper
55
73 115
m37
1
0-20
I
13
Rhyolite
6.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m37
1
0-20
1
1
Other
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m37
1
0-20
I
2
Rhyolite
3.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
55
73 115
m38
1
0-20
I
3
Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m39
1
0-20
1
1
Quartz
0.7 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m40
1
0-20
1
1
Rhyolite
1.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m40
1
0-20
1
1
Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
55
73 115
m40
I
0-20
1
1
Quartz
1.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
55
73 115
m4l
2
20-35
IA
I
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
55
73 115
m41
2
20-35
[A
I
Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
55
73 115
a42
-
18-30
Feature 7
1
Rhyolite
4.2 Projectile point, Piscataway
Lateral edge
grinding
55
73 115
m43
-
Floatation
Feature 7
2
Quartzite
33.8 Fire cracked rock
55
73 115
m44
-
Floatation
Feature 7
1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
55
73 115
m44
-
Floatation
Feature 7
2
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <l cm
55
73 115
m44
-
Floatation
Feature 7
1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m45
-
Floatation
Feature 7
3
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
55
73 115
m45
-
Floatation
Feature 7
3
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
55
73 115
m46
-
Floatation
Feature 7
2
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
55
73 115
m46
-
Floatation
Feature 7
1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <] cm
55
73 115
a47
-
1446
Feature 8
1
Rhyolite
0.9 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
Impact and
transverse fractures
55
73 115
m48
-
14-46
Feature 8
2
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m49
-
14-46
Feature 8
3
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m50
-
14-46
Feature 8
1
Quartz
0.9 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m5l
-
1446
Feature 8
1
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
55
73 115
m5l
-
1446
Feature 8
2
Quartz
1.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
18
73 122
m52
1
0-9
I
6
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
18
73 122
m52
1
0-9
I
1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
18
73 122
m52
1
0-9
I
9
Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
18
73 122
m52
1
0-9
I
3
Quartz
0.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
18
73 122
m52
1
0-9
I
2
Rhyolite
4.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
18
73 122
m52
1
0-9
1
I
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
18
73 122
m52
1
0-9
1
1
Rhyolite
3.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
18
73 122
m53
1
0-9
[
3
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
18
73 122.
m53
1
0-9
1
1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <t cm
18
73 122
m53
1
0-9
I
13
Rhyolite
2.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
18
73 122
m54
1
0-9
I
1
Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary shatter, I-2 cm
18
73 122
m54
1
0-9
1
1
Quartz
0.5 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
18
73 122
m54
1
0-9
1
1
Quartz
2.3 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
18
73 122
m55
1
0-9
1
2
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
18
73 122
m55
t
0-9
1
3
Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
18
73 122
m55
1
0-9
I
2
Quartz
2.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
18
73 122
m55
1
0-9
I
1
Rhyolite
1.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
18
73 122
m55
1
0-9
I
1
Quartz
6.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
18
73 122
m55
1
0-9
1
1
Rhyolite
13.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
18
73 122
m56
2
9-15
I[
I
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
50
74 74
m57
1
0-15
[
7
Rhyolite
2.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
50
74 74
m58
1
0-15
1
12
Rhyolite
3.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
b-

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E
#
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact Comments
50
74 74
m59
1 0-15
I 3
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
50
74 74
m59
1 0-15
I 2
Quartz
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
50
74 74
m59
1 0-15
I 1
Rhyolite
4.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
50
74 74
m59
1 0-15
1 2
Rhyolite
11.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
50
74 74
m60
2 15-20
IA I
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
40
74 96
m6l
1 0-12
I 1
Quartzite
8.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
40
74 96
m62
1 0-12
I 4
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
40
74 96
m62
1 0-12
1 25
Rhyolite
10.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
40
74 96
m62
1 0-12
1 5
Quartz
4.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
40
74 96
m62
1 0-12
I 3
Rhyolite
4.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
40
74 96
m62
1 0-12
1 1
Quartz
2.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
40
74 96
m62
1 0-12
1 1
Rhyolite
12.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
40
74 96
m63
1 0-12
I 2
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
40
74 96
m63
1 0-12
1 22
Rhyolite
8.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
40
74 96
m63
1 0-12
I 1
Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
40
74 96
m63
1 0-12
1 1
Rhyolite
6.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
40
74 96
m64
1 0-12
1 l
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
40
74 96
m64
1 0-12
1 8
Rhyolite
3.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
40
74 96
m64
1 0-12
I 7
Quartz
3.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
40
74 96
m64
1 0-12
1 4
Rhyolite
6.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
40
74 96
m64
1 0-12
I 1
Rhyolite
7.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
40
74 96
m64
1 0-12
I 1
Rhyolite
24.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
40
74 96
m65
2 12-17
If I
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
40
74 96
m65
2 12-17
11 I
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
41
74 97
a66
1 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
11.8 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment Hinge and
transverse fractures
41
74 97
m67
1 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
1.1 Primary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
41
74 97
m68
1 4-14
I 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
41
74 97
m68
1 4-14
1 2
Rhyolite
3.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
41
74 97
m69
t 4-14
1 5
Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
41
74 97
m69
1 4-14
1 26
Rhyolite
12.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
41
74 97
m69
1 4-14
1 5
Rhyolite
10.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
41
74 97
m69
1 4-14
I 2
Rhyolite
7.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
41
74 97
m70
1 4-14
1 2
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
41
74 97
m70
l 4-14
I 26
Rhyolite
9.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
41
74 97
m70
1 4-14
1 3
Rhyolite
7.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
41
74 97
m71
I 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
41
74 97
m71
1 4-14
I 7
Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
41
74 97
m71
1 4-14
I 3
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
41
74 97
m71
1 4-14
I 7
Rhyolite
14.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
41
74 97
m71
1 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
15.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
41
74 97
m72
2 14-19
11 1
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
25
74 104
m73
1 0-10
1 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
25
74 104
m74
1 0-10
1 3
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
25
74 104
m74
t 0-10
1 11
Rhyolite
5.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
25
74 104
m74
1 0-10
1 1
Rhyolite
1.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
25
74 104
m74
1 0-10
1 I
Rhyolite
3.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
25
74 104
m75
1 0-10
1 I
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
25
74 104
m75
1 0-10
1 21
Rhyolite
5.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
25
74 104
m75
1 0-10
1 1
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
crystal
25
74 104
m75
1 0-10
1 1
Rhyolite
1.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
25
74 104
m76
1 0-10
1 1
Quartz
1.1 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
25
74 104
m76
1 0-10
1 1
Rhyolite
11.5 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
25
74 104
m77
1 0-10
I I
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
25
74 104
m77
1 0-10
1 5
Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
25
74 104
m77
1 0-10
1 2
Quartz
1.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
crystal
25
74 104
m77
1 0-10
I 1
Quartz
6.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
26
75 104
m78
1 +5-2
1 1
Rhyolite
0.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
26
75 104
m78
1 +5-2
1 2
Rhyolite
2.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E
#
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
Comments
26
75 104
m79
1 +5-2
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
26
75
104
m79
1 +5-2
I 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
26
75
104
m79
1 +5-2
1 25
Rhyolite
12.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
26
75
104
m79
1 +5-2
1 3
Rhyolite
3.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
26
75
104
m80
I ' +5-2
I 4
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
26
75
104.
m80
1 +5-2
I 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
26
75
104
m80
1 +5-2
I 17
Rhyolite
5.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
26
75
104
m80
1 +5-2
1 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
26
75
104
m80
1 +5-2
1 2
Rhyolite
1.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
26
75
104
m80
1 +5-2
1 1
Rhyolite
3.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
26
75
104
m81
1 +5-2
I 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <t cm
26
75
104
m8l
1 +5-2
I 3
Quartz
3.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
26
75
104
m8l
1 +5-2
I 1
Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
26
75
104
m81
1 +5-2
1 1
Quartz
4.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
31
79
98
a82
1 0-12
1 1
Glass
0.2 Glass, clear container
31
79
98
m83
1 0-12
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Secondary biface thinning flake, <I cm
31
79
98
m83
1 0-12
I 5
Rhyolite
3.4 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
31
79
98
m83
1 0-12
I 2
Rhyolite
2.7 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
31
79
98
m83
1 0-12
1 1
Rhyolite
5.1 Secondary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
31
79
98
m84
l 0-12
1 3
Rhyolite
6.3 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
1 10
Rhyolite
1.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
1 2
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <l cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
I 76
Rhyolite
31.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
1 4
Quartz
1.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
I 4
Other
1.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
1 17
Rhyolite
25.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
1 1
Quartz
1.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
1 2
Other
5.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
31
79
98
m85
1 0-12
I 4
Rhyolite
15.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
31
79
98
m86
1 0-12
1 4
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
31
79
98
m86
1 0-12
1 52
Rhyolite
16.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
31
79
98
m86
1 0-12
1 7
Rhyolite
6.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
31
79
98
m86
1 0-12
1 1
Rhyolite
4.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
31
79
98
m87
1 0-12
1 22
Rhyolite
13.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
31
79
98
m87
1 0-12
I 1
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary unspecializcd flake, 1-2 cm
31
79
98
m87
1 0-12
1 1
Other
1.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
31
79
98
m87
1 0-12
1 15
Rhyolite
28.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
31
79
98
m87
1 0-12
1 3
Rhyolite
14.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
31
79
98
m87
1 0-12
1 2
Rhyolite
22.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
32
79
99
a88
1 2-14
1 1
Rhyolite
11.9 Projectile point, Savannah River
2 mended
Stemmed
fragments; impact,
comer/barb break
and recent fractures
32
79
99
a89
1 2-14
I 1
Rhyolite
3.3 Retouched flake, end and side
32
79
99
m90
1 2-14
1 1
Quartz
49.3 Fire cracked rock
32
79
99
m91
1 2-14
1 1
Rhyolite
2.8 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
32
79
99
m92
1 2-14
1 l
Rhyolite
2.0 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
32
79
99
m93
1 2-14
I 1
Rhyolite
2.6 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
32
79
99
m94
1 2-14
I 1
Rhyolite
2.9 Secondary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
32
79
99
m95
1 2-14
1 3
Rhyolite
1.6 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
32
79
99
m96
1 2-14
1 5
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
32
79
99
m96
1 2-14
1 58
Rhyolite
24.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
32
79
99
m96
I 2-14
1 5
Quartz
2.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
32
79
99
m96
1 2-14
1 19
Rhyolite
29.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
32
79
99
m96
1 2-14
I 2
Quartz
2.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
32
79
99
m96
1 2-14
I I
Rhyolite
6.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
32
79
99
m97
1 2-14
I 2
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
32
79
99
m97
1 2-14
I 47
Rhyolite
18.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
32
79
99
m97
1 2-14
I 4
Quartz
1.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
32
79
99
m97
1 2-14
1 7
Rhyolite
8.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
32
79
99
m98
1 2-14
1 2
Quartz
3.1 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(9) Artifact Comments
32
79
99 m98
1
2-14
I 2
Rhyolite
4.9 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
32
79
99 m99
1
2-14
1 22
Rhyolite
13.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
32
79
99 m99
1
2-14
1 3
Quartz
4.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
32
79
99 m99
1
2-14
1 7
Rhyolite
10.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
32
79
99 m99
1
2-14
1 1
Quartz
1.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
32
79
99 m99
1
2-14
1 2
Rhyolite
7.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
32
79
99 m100
2
14-19
11 1
Rhyolite
1.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
32
79
99 ml01
2
14-19
11 1
Rhyolitc
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 al02
1
0-11
1 1
Quartz
2.9 Retouched flake, side
67
80
87 m103
1
0-11
1 l
Rhyolite
1.9 Primary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 m104
1
0-11
1 1
Rhyolite
10.7 Primary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
67
80
87 m105
1
0-11
1 3
Rhyolite
0.9 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 m105
1
0-11
1 1
Rhyolite
2.7 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 m105
1
0-11
1 1
Rhyolite
4.5 Secondary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
67
80
87 m106
1
0-11
1 2
Rhyolite
0.3 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 m 106
1
0-11
1 2
Rhyolite
3.6 Secondary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 m107
1
0-11
1 1
Rhyolite
0.6 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 m 107
1
0-11
1 1
Rhyolite
1.6 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 m108
1
0-11
I 16
Rhyolite
1.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
67
80
87 m108
1
0-11
I 117
Rhyolite
49.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 m 108
1
0-11
1 18
Rhyolite
29.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 m109
l
0-11
1 8
Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, <l cm
67
80
87 m 109
1
0-11
1 71
Rhyolite
25.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 m109
1
0-11
1 1
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 m109
1
0-11
I 7
Rhyolite
9.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 m 109
1
0-11
1 2
Quartz
5.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 m109
1
0-11
1 1
Quartz
6.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
67
80
87 m109
1
0-11
1 1
Rhyolite
1.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
67
80
87 m110
1
0-11
1 4
Quartz
0.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
67
80
87 ml 10
1
0-11
I 14
Rhyolite
6.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 ml 10
1
0-11
1 3
Quartz
3.7 Tertiary unspccialized flake, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 ml 10
1
0-11
I 13
Rhyolite
23.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 m 110
1
0-11
1 2
Quartz
8.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
67
80
87 ml 10
1
0-11
1 8
Rhyolite
37.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
67
80
87 ml 10
1
0-11
1 2
Rhyolite
30.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
67
80
87 m I l l
2
11-16
Il 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
67
80
87 ml 12
2
11-16
11 2
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, I-2 cm
67
80
87 ml 13
2
11-16
11 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 al 14
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolitc
5.1 Projectile point, Small Savannah River Tip missing; impact
Stemmed fracture
9
80
90 m I l S
1
0-13
1 3
Quartz
111.8 Fire cracked rock
9
80
90 ml 16
1
0-13
1 2
Rhyolite
1.3 Primary biface thinning flake, I-2 cm
9
80
90 ml 17
1
0-13
1 2
Rhyolite
1.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 ml 17
1
0-13
1 4
Rhyolite
9.5 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
9
80
90 ml 17
I
0-13
t 1
Rhyolite
4.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
9
80
90 ml 18
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
0.8 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 ml 19
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
0.4 Secondary unspccialized flake, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 ml 19
1
0-13
I 2
Rhyolite
3.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
9
80
90 m120
1
0-13
1 7
Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
9
80
90 m120
1
0-13
1 1
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
9
80
90 m120
1
0-13
I 61
Rhyolite
21.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 m120
1
0-13
1 5
Quartz
2.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 m120
1
0-13
1 3
Other
1.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 m120
1
0-13
1 31
Rhyolite
46.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
9
80
90 ml21
1
0-13
1 3
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
9
80
90 m121
1
0-13
1 51
Rhyolite
19.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 ml21
1
0-13
1 6
Rhyolite
10.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
9
80
90 m122
1
0-13
1 2
Quartz
1.3 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 m122
1
0-13
1 1
Quartz
8.7 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
9
80
90 m122
l
0-13
1 t
Quartz
18.7 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
9
80
90 m122
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
40.3 Tertiary shatter, >5 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
Comments
9
80
90 m123
1 0-13
1 1
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
9
80
90 m123
1 0-13
1 14
Rhyolite
8.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, I-2 cm
9
80
90 m123
1 0-13
1 9
Quartz
8.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
9
80
90 m123
1 0-13
I 9
Rhyolite
15.1 Tertiary unspecialized. flake, 2-3 cm
9
80
90 m123
1 0-13
I 2
Quartz
7.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
9
80
90 m123
1 0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
3.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
9
80
90 m123
1 0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
12.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
9
80
90 m123
I 0-13
1 1
Quartz
24.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
9
80
90 p124
2 13-23
If 1
Pottery
4.5 Yadkin fabric impressed, grit temper
9
80
90 m125
2 13-23
II 1
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 a126
1 4-14
I 1
Rhyolite
13.7 Biface, Stage 2 distal fragment
Hinge and
transverse fractures
12
80
91 m127
1 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
42.1 Core, amorphous
12
80
91 m128
1 4-14
1 3
Quartz
34.0 Fire cracked rock
12
80
91 m129
1 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
0.5 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m130
I 4-14
1 6
Rhyolite
11.8 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
12
80
91 m131
1 4-14
I 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m132
1 4-14
I 3
Rhyolite
3.6 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m132
1 4-14
1 1
Quartz
2.1 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m132
1 4-14
1 1
Quartz
5.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
12
80
91 m132
1 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
7.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
12
80
91 m133
1 4-14
1 7
Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
12
80
91 m133
1 4-14
I 2
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
12
80
91 m133
1 4-14
I 76
Rhyolite
35.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m133
1 4-14
I 6
Quartz
3.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m133
1 4-14
1 2
Other
0.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m133
1 4-14
l 21
Rhyolite
38.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
12
80
91 m133
1 4-14
1 2
Other
2.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
12
80
91 m133
l 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
5.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
12
80
91 m134
I 4-14
1 6
Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
12
80
91 m134
1 4-14
1 54
Rhyolite
17.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m134
1 4-14
1 3
Quartz
1.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m134
1 4-14
1 2
Rhyolite
2.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
12
80
91 m135
1 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
1.4 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m135
1 4-14
I 1
Rhyolite
1.7 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
12
80
91 m135
1 4-14
1 1
Rhyolite
10.0 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
12
80
91 m136
I 4-14
1 26
Rhyolite
16.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, I-2 cm
12
80
91 m136
1 4-14
I 1
Quartz
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
12
80
91 m136
1 4-14
1 13
Rhyolite
23.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
12
80
91 m136
1 4-14
1 2
Quartz
4.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
12
80
91 m136
1 4-14
1 2
Rhyolite
8.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
12
80
91 m136
1 4-14
1 I
Rhyolite
16.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
12
80
91 m136
1 4-14
1 t
Rhyolite
9.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake,>5 cm
12
80
91 m 137
2 14-24
11 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 a138
I +6-9
I 1
Rhyolite
2.6 Projectile point, Guilford proximal
Transverse fracture
fragment
10
81
90 m139
1 +6-9
I 1
Quartz
45.5 Fire cracked rock
10
81
90 m 140
1 +6-9
1 1
Quartzite
20.1 Primary shatter, 4-5 cm
10
81
90 m 141
1 +6-9
1 2
Rhyolite
3.8 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m142
1 +6-9
1 2
Rhyolite
1.4 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m142
1 +6-9
1 3
Rhyolite
3.7 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m142
l +6-9
I 2
Rhyolite
8.9 Secondary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
10
81
90 m143
1 +6-9
I 2
Rhyolite
1.7 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m 143
1 +6-9
I 1
Rhyolite
2.2 Secondary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m144
1 +6-9
1 1
Rhyolite
0.7 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m144
1 +6-9
1 1
Rhyolite
3.9 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
10
81
90 m144
1 +6-9
1 1
Quartzite
8.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
10
81
90 m145
1 +6-9
I 10
Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <t cm
10
81
90 m145
1 +6-9
I 66
Rhyolite
28.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
10
Sl
90 m145
1 +6-9
I 4
Quartz
1.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
10
91
90 m145
1 +6-9
I 1
Other
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact Comments
10
81
90 m145
1
+6-9
I 19
Rhyolite
28.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m 145
1
+6-9
I 3
Other
6.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m145
1
+6-9
I 3
Rhyolite
11.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
10
81
90 m146
I
+6-9
I 7
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
10
81
90 m146
1
+6-9
I 63
Rhyolite
21.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m146
1
+6-9
I 2
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m146
1
+6-9
1 1
Other
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m146
1
+6-9
I 7
Rhyolite
9.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m147
1
+6-9
1 1
Quartz
2.7 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m 147
1
+6-9
1 1
Quartz
12.6 Tertiary shatter, 4-5 cm
10
81
90 m148
1
+6-9
1 7
Rhyolite
4.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m148
1
+6-9
1 3
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m 148
1
+6-9
1 4
Rhyolite
13.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m148
1
+6-9
1 1
Rhyolite
8.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
10
81
90 m148
1
+6-9
1 1
Rhyolite
5.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
10
81
90 m148
1
+6-9
1 l
Rhyolite
56.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
10
81
90 m149
2
9-19
11 l
Rhyolite
0.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m 150
2
9-19
11 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
10
81
90 m150
2
9-19
11 1
Rhyolite
3.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m150
2
9-19
Il I
Quartz
1.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
10
81
90 m151
2
9-19
11 3
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
10
81
90 m152
3
19-25
II I
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
I0
81
90 m 153
3
19-25
11 1
Quartz
1.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
I 1
81
91 p154
1
+3-9
1 2
Pottery
4.1 Badin(Yadkin indeterminate
11
81
91 a155
1
+3-9
1 1
Other
8.3 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment Hinge and
transverse fracture
11
81
91 m156
1
+3-9
I 1
Quartz
141.3 Core, bipolar
11
81
91 m l57
1
+3-9
1 6
Quartz
154.1 Fire cracked rock
11
81
91 m 158
1
+3-9
1 1
Rhyolite
0.9 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
t 1
81
91 m 158
1
+3-9
1 1
Rhyolite
1.7 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
11
81
91 m159
1
+3-9
1 1
Rhyolite
1.2 Primary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
11
81
91 m159
1
+3-9
I 1
Rhyolite
1.8 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
11
81
91 m160
1
+3-9
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Secondary biface thinning flake, <I cm
11
81
91 m160
1
+3-9
1 2
Rhyolite
0.9 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
11
81
91 m160
1
+3-9
1 2
Rhyolite
3.0 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
11
81
91 m 160
I
+3-9
1 1
Rhyolite
2.9 Secondary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
I 1
81
91 m161
1
+3-9
1 2
Rhyolite
0.8 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
1 I
81
91 m162
1
+3-9
1 3
Rhyolite
0.9 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
11
81
91 m162
1
+3-9
1 1
Rhyolite
3.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
11
81
91 m163
1
+3-9
1 9
Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
11
81
91 m163
1
+3-9
I 2
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
1 I
81
91 m163
1
+3-9
1 71
Rhyolite
33.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
I 1
81
91 m163
1
+3-9
1 5
Quartz
2.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
11
81
91 m163
1
+3-9
1 18
Rhyolite
24.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
11
81
91 m163
1
+3-9
1 3
Quartz
5.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
11
81
91 m163
1
+3-9
1 1
Rhyolite
7.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
11
81
91 m164
1
+3-9
I 1
Rhyolite
1.2 Tertiary blade flake, 2-3 cm
11
81
91 m165
1
+3-9
1 16
Rhyolite
1.6 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
11
81
91 m165
1
+3-9
I 47
Rhyolite
13.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
11
81
91 m165
1
+3-9
1 3
Quartz
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, I-2 cm
11
81
91 m165
1
+3-9
1 5
Rhyolite
6.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
I l
81
91 m165
1
+3-9
1 2
Rhyolite
4.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
11
81
91 m166
1
+3-9
I 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary shatter, <1 cm
11
81
91 m 166
1
+3-9
1 1
Quartz
6.6 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
11
81
91 m167
1
+3-9
1 I
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
11
81
91 m167
1
+3-9
1 25
Rhyolite
10.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
11
81
91 m167
1
+3-9
I 1
Quartz
1.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
11
81
91 m167
1
+3-9
1 9
Rhyolite
16.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
11
81
91 m167
1
+3-9
I 1
Rhyolite
3.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
11
81
91 m167
1
+3-9
1 1
Quartz
4.6Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
11
81
91 m168
2
9-19
Il 2
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
11
81 91 m168
2 9-19
11
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
11
81 91 m169
2 9-19
II
I Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
64
82 106 a170
1 0-14
I
1 Chert
0.6 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
64
82 106 a170
1 0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
3.1 Biface, Stage 3 medial fragment
64
82 106 m171
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
33.1 Core, bipolar
64
82 106 mI72
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
0.7 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
64
82 106 m173
1 0-14
1
2 Rhyolite
1.7 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
64
82 106 m173
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
1.9 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
64
82 106 m173
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
9.0 Secondary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
64
82 106 ml74
1 0-14
1
4 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <t cm
64
82 106 m174
1 0-14
1
33 Rhyolite
10.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
64
82 106 m174
1 0-14
1
4 Rhyolite
3.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
64
82 106 m175
1 0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
64
82 106 m175
1 0.14
1
23 Rhyolite
6.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
64
82 106 m175
1 0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
2.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
64
82 106 m176
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
1.6 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
64
82 106 m176
1 0-14
1
2 Quartz
8.2 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
64
82 106 m177
1 0-14
I
6 Rhyolite
3.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
64
82 106 m177
1 0-14
I
3 Quartz
1.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
64
82 106 m177
1 0-14
1
3 Rhyolite
7.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
64
82 106 m177
1 0-14
I
1 Quartz
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
64
82 106 m177
1 0-14
1
3 Rhyolite
14.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
64
82 106 m177
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
15.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
64
82 106 m178
2 14-19
if
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
64
82 106 m178
2 14-19
11
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
62
83 66 al79
1 0-13
1
1 Rhyolite
6.7 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
62
83 66 a179
l 0-I3
1
1 Rhyolite
1.3 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
62
83 66 m180
1 0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
1.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
62
83 66 m181
1 0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
62
83 66 ml81
1 0-13
1
2 Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
62
83 66 m181
1 0-13
1
2 Quartz
1.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
62
83 66 m181
I 0-13
1
1 Other
1.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
62
83 66 m 182
1 0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
62
83 66 m 182
1 0-13
1
I Rhyolite
1.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
62
83 66 m183
1 0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
352.8 Unmodified chunk
60
83 123 a184
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
11.3 Biface, Stage 3 proximal fragment
60
83 123 m185
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
12.7 Core, fragment
60
83 123 m186
1 0-14
1
7 Quartz
84.2 Fire cracked rock
60
83 123 m187
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
1.5 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
60
83 123 m187
1 0-14
I
2 Rhyolite
11.3 Secondary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
60
83 123 m188
1 0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
2.8 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
60
83 123 m189
1 0-14
1
10 Rhyolite
3.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
60
83 123 m189
1 0-14
I
9 Quartz
3.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
60
83 123 m189
1 0-14
1
3 Rhyolite
3.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
60
83 123 m190
1 0-14
1
4 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
60
83 123 m190
1 0-14
1
5 Rhyolite
2.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
60
83 123 m190
1 0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
60
83 123 ml91
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
1.6 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
60
83 123 m l91
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
5.2 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
crystal
60
83 123 m192
1 0-14
1
5 Rhyolite
3.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
60
83 123 m192
1 0-14
1
6 Quartz
5.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, I-2 cm
60
83 t23 m192
1 0-14
1
4 Rhyolite
5.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
Comments
Transverse fracture
Transverse and
recent fractures;
resharpened on one
edge
Transverse fracture;
medium light gray
color
Transverse fracture;
yellowish gray color
Large rhyolite block
Transverse fracture

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
60
83
123 m192
1
0-14
1 2
Quartz
14.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
60
83
123 m193
2
14-19
IT 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
60
83
123 m194
2
14-19
II 2
Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
60
83
123 m195
2
14-19
Il 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
61
84
54 m 196
1
0-16
1 2
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
61
84
54 m196
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
61
84
54 m196
1
0-I6
1 8
Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
61
84
54 m196
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
61
84
54 m197
1
0-16
I 2
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
61
84
54 m197
1
0-16
I 3
Rhyolite
1.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
61
84
54 m198
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
1.3 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
61
84
54 m198
1
0-16
1 2
Quartz
4.4 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
61
84
54 m199
1
0-16
1 2
Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
61
84
54 m200
2
16-26
11 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
61
84
54 m201
2
16-26
II 1
Rhyolite
1.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
38
84
83 a202
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
14.1 Biface, Stage I distal fragment
38
84
83 a203
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
3.8 Retouched flake, end and side
38
84
83 m204
1
0-13
1 I
Quartzite
148.2 Cobble, split
38
84
83 m205
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
38
84
83 m205
1
0-13
1 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
38
84
83 m205
1
0-13
1 17
Rhyolite
5.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
38
84
83 m205
1
0-13
1 2
Quartz
1.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
38
84
83 m205
1
0-13
1 6
Rhyolite
10.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
38
84
83 m205
1
0-13
1 1
Chert
1.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
38
84
83 m206
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
38
84
83 m206
1
0-13
1 1
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
38
84
83 m206
1
0-13
1 18
Rhyolite
6.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
38
84
83 m206
1
0-13
1 2
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
38
84
83 m206
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
1.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
38
84
83 m207
1
0-13
1 2
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
38
84
83 m207
1
0-13
I 2
Rhyolite
1.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
38
84
83 m207
1
0-13
1 6
Rhyolite
8.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
38
84
83 m207
1
0-13
1 1
Quartz
3.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
38
84
83 m207
1
0-13
1 1
Quartz
6.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
39
85
83 m208
1
+84
1 4
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
39
85
83 m208
1
+8-4
1 14
Rhyolite
6.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
39
85
83 m208
1
+9 4
1 1
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
39
85
83 m208
1
+84
I 5
Rhyolite
7.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
39
85
83 m208
1
+84
1 2
Rhyolite
20.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
39
85
83 m209
1
+8-4
1 4
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
39
85
93 m209
1
+84
1 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
39
85
83 m209
1
+8-4
1 14
Rhyolite
4.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
39
85
83 m209
1
+8-4
1 2
Rhyolite
3.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
39
85
83 m210
1
+84
1 1
Quartz
1.3 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
39
85
83 m210
1
+84
1 1
Rhyolite
8.7 Tertiary shatter, 3-4 cm
39
85
83 m211
1
+8-4
I 5
Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
39
85
83 m211
1
+9 4
1 4
Rhyolite
5.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
39
85
83 m211
1
+84
1 1
Quartz
3.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
39
85
83 m2l 1
1
+84
1 1
Rhyolite
5.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
39
85
83 m212
2
4-12
H 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
39
85
83 m213
2
4-12
11 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
39
85
83 m214
-
9-63
Feature 5 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
39
85
83 m215
-
9-63
Feature 5 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
39
85
83 m215
-
9-63
Feature 5 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 a216
1
0-14
1 1
Rhyolite
3.3 Projectile point, Small Savannah River
Stemmed
45
85
96 m217
1
0-14
1 1
Quartz
37.2 Core, amorphous.
45
85
96 m218
1
0-14
I 1
Quartz
52.6 Fire cracked rock
45
85
96 m219
1
0-14
1 1
Rhyolite
1.0 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 m220
1
0-14
1 1
Rhyolite
2.6 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
45
85
96 m221
1
0-14
1 6
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
Comments
Transverse fracture
2 comer/barb breaks

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
45
85
96 m221
1 0-14
I 2
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
45
85
96 m221
1 0-14
I 41
Rhyolite
15.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 m221
1 0-14
I 9
Quartz
2.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 m221
1 0-14
1 6
Rhyolite
9.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
45
85
96 m221
1 0-14
1 1
Quartz
1.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
45
85
96 m221
1 0-14
1 I
Rhyolite
1.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3.4 cm
45
85
96 m222
1 0-14
1 1
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary blade flake, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 m223
1 0-14
I 8
Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
45
85
96 m223
1 0-14
1 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
45
85
96 m223
1 0-14
1 26
Rhyolite
6.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 m223
1 0-14
I 3
Quartz
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 m223
1 0-14
I 1
Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
45
85
96 m224
1 0-14
1 1
Quartz
5.4 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
45
85
96 m225
1 0-14
I 2
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
45
85
96 m225
1 0-14
1 10
Rhyolite
5.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 m225
1 0-14
I 6
Quartz
3.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
45
85
96 m225
1 0-14
1 6
Rhyolite
10.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
45
85
96 m225
1 0-14
1 4
Quartz
9.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
45
85
96 m225
1 0-14
I 3
Rhyolite
17.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
45
85
96 m225
1 0-14
I 1
Rhyolite
18.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
45
85
96 m226
2 14-19
lI I
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
46
86
96 a227
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
6.7 Projectile point, Badin
46
86
96 a228
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
2.2 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
46
86
96 m229
1 +2-12
I 1
Rhyolite
2.6 Primary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
46
86
96 m230
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
1.0 Secondary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
46
86
96 m231
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Secondary unspecialized flake, <I cm
46
86
96 m232
1 +2-12
1 4
Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
46
86
96 m232
1 +2-12
1 34
Rhyolite
15.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
46
86
96 m232
1 +2-12
1 3
Quartz
2.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
46
86
96 m232
1 +2-12
I 13
Rhyolite
18.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
46
86
96 m232
1 +2-12
1 3
Rhyolite
8.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
46
86
96 m233
1 +2-12
I 5
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
46
86
96 m233
1 +2-12
1 34
Rhyolite
10.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
46
86
96 m233
1 +2-12
1 2
Quartz
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
46
86
96 m233
1 +2-12
1 7
Rhyolite
10.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
46
86
96 m233
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
3.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
46
86
96 m233
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
5.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 4-5 cm
46
86
96 m234
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
46
86
96 m235
1 +2-12
1 3
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
46
86
96 m235
1 +2-12
I 18
Rhyolite
6.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
46
86
96 m235
1 +2-12
1 7
Rhyolite
9.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
46
86
96 m235
1 +2-12
I 1
Quartz
3.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
46
86
96 m235
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
6.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
46
86
96 m235
1 +2-12
1 1
Rhyolite
23.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
46
86
96 m236
2 12-17
11 2
Rhyolite
3.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
51
87
74 a237
1 0-17
1 1
Rhyolite
0.8 Projectile point, unclassified straight
stemmed
51
87
74 a238
1 0-17
I 1
Rhyolite
7.3 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
51
87
74 m239
1 0-17
1 3
Quartz
86.2 Fire cracked rock
51
87
74 m240
1 0-17
1 11
Rhyolite
3.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
51
87
74 m240
1 0-17
1 3
Quartz
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
51
87
74 m240
1 0-17
1 2
Rhyolite
2.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
51
87
74 m241
1 0-17
I 4
Rhyolite
I.I Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
51
87
74 m241
1 0-17
1 1
Quartz
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
51
87
74 m242
1 0-17
I I
Quartz
1.9 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
51
87
74 m242
1 0-17
I 1
Other
22.3 Tertiary shatter, 3-4 cm
51
87
74 m243
1 0-17
1 1
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
Comments
Barb/comer break;
basal grinding
Perverse and impact
fractures
Longitudinal and
recent fractures;
base and lateral
grinding
Perverse fracture

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
51
87 74 m243
1
0-17
I 1
Quartz
0.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
51
87 74 m243
1
0-17
1 2
Rhyolite
8.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
51
87 74 m243
1
0-17
1 1
Quartz
2.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
51
87 74 m243
1
0-17
1 1
Rhyolite
49.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
51
87 74 m244
2
17-26
IA 1
Rhyolite
0.9 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
51
87 74 m245
2
17-26
IA 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
51
87 74 m245
2
17-26
IA 3
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
51
87 74 m246
2
17-26
IA 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
51
87 74 m246
2
17-26
IA I
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
51
87 74 m247
2
17-26
IA 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
51
87 74 m247
2
17-26
IA 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
51
87 74 m247
2
17-26
[A I
Rhyolite
1.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
34
87 104 p248
1
0-15
1 1
Ceramic
0.9 Redware fragment
34
87 104 a249
1
0-15
1 1
Rhyolite
16.9 Biface, Stage 2
34
87 104 a250
1
0-15
[ 1
Rhyolite
0.8 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
34
87 104 a250
1
0-15
I 1
Rhyolite
0.4 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
34
87 104 a251
1
0-15
1 1
Rhyolite
7.5 Scraper, denticulated
34
87 104 m252
1
0-15
1 3
Quartz
202.4 Fire cracked rock
34
87 104 m253
1
0-15
I 2
Rhyolite
2.9 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
34
87 104 m254
1
0-15
1 7
Rhyolite
1.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
34
87 104 m254
1
0-15
1 2
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
34
87 104 m254
1
0-15
1 38
Rhyolite
13.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m254
I
0-15
1 5
Quartz
1.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m254
1
0-15
1 5
Rhyolite
6.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
34
87 104 m255
1
0.15
[ 7
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
34
87 104 m255
1
0-15
1 27
Rhyolite
8.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m255
1
0-15
1 2
Quartz
1.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m255
1
0-15
I 4
Rhyolite
4.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
34
87 104 m256
1
0-15
1 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary shatter, <1 cm
34
87 104 m256
1
0-15
I 1
Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m256
1
0-15
1 4
Quartz
5.5 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m256
1
0-15
I 1
Quartz
13.6 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
34
87 104 m257
1
0-15
1 5
Rhyolite
2.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m257
1
0-15
1 4
Quartz
2.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m257
1
0-15
1 2
Rhyolite
2.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
34
87 104 m257
1
0-15
1 1
Quartz
2.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
34
87 104 m257
1
0-15
I 3
Rhyolite
14.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
34
87 104 m258
2
13-19
IA I
Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
34
87 104 m259
2
13-19
IA I
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
34
87 104 m260
3
19-29
II 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
35
87 105 a261
1
1-I8
1 1
Rhyolite
10.4 Projectile point, Small Savannah River
Stemmed proximal fragment
35
87 105 a262
1
1-18
1 1
Rhyolite
8.3 Scraper, concavetnotched
35
87 105 m263
1
1-18
1 1
Rhyolite
4.7 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
35
87 105 m264
1
1-18
1 1
Rhyolite
0.5 Primary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m264
1
1-18
1 3
Quartz
3.2 Primary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m265
1
1-18
1 1
Quartz
1.0 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m265
1
1-18
I 1
Rhyolite
0.6 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
35
87 105 m265
1
1-18
I 1
Quartz
5.8 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
35
87 105 m266
1
1-I8
I 6
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
35
87 105 m266
1
1-18
1 27
Rhyolite
9.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m266
1
1-18
1 1
Quartz
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m266
1
1-18
1 7
Rhyolite
11.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
35
87 105 m266
1
1-18
1 2
Rhyolite
6.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
Comments
Hinge and
longitudinal
fractures
Transverse fracture,
medium dark gray
color
Transverse fracture;
light gray color
Transverse and
comer/barb break
fractures

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact Comments
35 87 105 m267
1
1-18
I
5 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
35 87 105 m267
1
1-18
1
22 Rhyolite
6.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
35 87 105 m267
1
1-18
1
2 Rhyolite
1.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
35 87 105 m268
1
1-18
1
1 Quartz
0.9 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
35 87 105 m268
1
1-18
I
2 Rhyolite
4.1 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
35 87 105 m268
1
1-18
1
1 Quartz
6.3 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
35
87 105 m269
1
1-18
1
2 Quartz
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
35
87 105 m269
1
1-18
1
6 Rhyolite
2.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m269
1
1-18
I
7 Quartz
2.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m269
1
1-18
1
2 Rhyolite
1.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
35
87 105 m269
I
1-18
1
1 Quartz
7.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
35
87 105 m270
2
18-24
IA
l Quartz
9.2 Fine cracked rock
35
87 105 m271
2
18-24
[A
2 Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m271
2
18-24
[A
I Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
35
87 105 m272
3
24-
11
1 Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
35
87 105 m273
3
24-
11
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
35
87 105 m273
3
24-
II
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 a274
1
0-20
I
4 Glass
10.0 Glass, clear container
63
87 116 m275
1
0-20
1
1 Quartz
71.5 Core, amorphous
63
87 116 m276
1
0-20
1
1 Quartz
8.2 Core, fragment
63
87 116 m277
1
0-20
[
2 Quartz
14.8 Fire cracked rock
63
87 116 m278
1
0-20
I
1 Rhyolite
18.6 Primary shatter, 4-5 cm
63
87 116 m279
1
0-20
1
2 Rhyolite
0.9 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m280
1
0-20
1
1 Quartz
1.1 Secondary bipolar flake, 2-3 cm
63
87 116 m281
1
0-20
1
3 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
63
87 116 m281
1
0-20
1
20 Rhyolite
7.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m281
1
0-20
1
15 Quartz
7.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m281
1
0-20
1
9 Rhyolite
14.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
63
87 116 m281
1
0-20
[
2 Quartz
5.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
63
87 116 m281
1
0-20
I
2 Rhyolite
11.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
63
87 116 m281
1
0-20
1
1 Rhyolite
10.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
63
87 116 m282
1
0-20
1
1 Quartz
1.4 Tertiary bipolar flake, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m283
1
0-20
1
4 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
63
87 116 m283
1
0-20
I
20 Rhyolite
6.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m283
1
0-20
1
2 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m283
1
0-20
1
1 Rhyolite
1.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
63
87 116 m284
1
0-20
1
7 Quartz
8.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m284
1
0-20
I
1 Rhyolite
1.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
63
87 116 m284
1
0-20
1
5 Quartz
10.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
63
87 116 m285
2
19-24
IA/11
2 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m285
2
19-24
IA/11
1 Quartz
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m285
2
19-24
IA/II
1 Rhyolite
2.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
63
87 116 m285
2
19-24
IA/[I
1 Quartz
2.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
63.
87 116 m285
2
19-24
IA/II
I Rhyolite
3.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
63
87 116 m286
2
19-24
IA/11
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m286
2
19-24
IA/II
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m287
2
19-24
IA/II
4 Quartz
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
63
87 116 m287
2
19-24
IA/11
I Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
43
89 89 p288
1
0-23
1
1 Pottery
4.0 Badin/Yadkin cord marked, sand temper
43
89 89 a289
1
0-23
1
1 Rhyolite
6.4 Biface, Stage 2 distal fragment Hinge fracture
43
89 89 a290
1
0-23
I
1 Quartz
2.4 Scraper, side
43
89 89 m291
I
0-23
1
1 Quartz
37.5 Core, amorphous
43
89 89 m292
1
0-23
1
6 Quartz
246.9 Fire cracked rock
43
89 89 m292
1
0-23
I
1 Quartzite
16.1 Fire cracked rock
43
89 89 m293
1
0-23
I
1 Rhyolite
1.4 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
43
89 89 m294
1
0-23
I
1 Quartz
14.4 Primary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
43
89 89 m295
1
0-23
1
3 Rhyolite
4.6 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
43
89 89 m296
1
0-23
1
1 Rhyolite
0.7 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m297
1
0-23
I
1 Rhyolite
2.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
43
89 89 m298
1
0-23
[
7 Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake,<1 cm
43
89 89 m298
t
0-23
1
3 Quartz
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(9) Artifact Comments
43
89 89 m298
t
0-23
1
26 Rhyolite
9.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m298
1
0-23
I
6 Rhyolite
9.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
43
89 89 m298
1
0-23
I
1 Rhyolite
11.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
43
89 89 m299
1
0-23
1
1 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary bipolar flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m299
I
0-23
1
1 Rhyolite
9.7 Tertiary bipolar flake, 3-4 cm
43
89 89 m300
1
0-23
1
4 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
43
89 89 m300
1
0-23
I
39 Rhyolite
11.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m300
1
0-23
1
4 Quartz
2.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m300
1
0-23
1
1 Rhyolite
4.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
43
89 89 m300
l
0-23
I
1 Rhyolite
6.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 4-5 cm
43
89 89 m301
1
0-23
1
1 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary shatter, <I cm
43
89 89 m301
1
0-23
I
1 Quartz
0.8 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m301
1
0-23
1
3 Rhyolite
6.3 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
43
89 89 m301
1
0-23
1
1 Quartz
12.8 Tertiary shatter, 3-4 cm
43
89 89 m302
1
0-23
1
9 Rhyolite
3.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m302
1
0-23
1
6 Quartz
2.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m302
1
0-23
I
6 Rhyolite
6.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
43
89 89 m302
1
0-23
1
4 Quartz
12.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
43
89 89 m302
1
0-23
1
1 Quartz
6.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
43
89 89 m302
1
0-23
1
2 Rhyolite
8.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
43
89 89 m303
2
23-28
IA111
3 Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m304
2
23-28
IA/11
I Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary bipolar flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m305
2
23-28
IA/II
I Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m305
2
23-28
IA/II
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m306
3
28-34
11
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
43
89 89 m307
3
28-34
11
I Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
23
89 111 m308
1
0-14
I
1 Quartz
33.4 Core, amorphous
23
89 111 m309
1
0-14
1
7 Quartz
111.3 Fire cracked rock
23
89 111 m310
1
0-14
1
2 Quartz
1.4 Primary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
23
89 Ill m310
1
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
2.3 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
23
89 111 m311
1
0-14
I
2 Rhyolite
0.9 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
23
89 111 m312
1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
10.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
23
89 111 m313
1
0-14
1
15 Rhyolite
6.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, I-2 cm
23
89 11 l m313
1
0-14
1
2 Rhyolite
1.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
23
89 111 m314
t
0-14
I
3 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
23
89 111 m314
1
0-14
1
2 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
23
89 111 m314
1
0-14
I
12 Rhyolite
4.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
23
89 111 m314
1
0-14
1
8 Quartz
3.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
23
89 111 m314
1
0-14
1
4 Rhyolite
4.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
23
89 111 m314
1
0-14
I
2 Rhyolite
9.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
23
89 111 m314
1
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
3.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 4-5 cm
23
89 Ill m315
1
0-14
1
2 Rhyolite
4.1 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
23
89 111 m315
1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
3.6 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
23
89 111 m316
1
0-14
I
7 Rhyolite
3.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
23
89 Ill m316
1
0-14
I
5 Quartz
2.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
23
89 111 m316
l
0-14
1
1 Chalcedon
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
y
23
89 111 m316
1
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
5.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
23
89 111 m316
1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
3.6 Tertiary unspecializcd flake, 2-3 cm
23
89 111 m316
l
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
8.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
23
89 111 m317
2
14-19
11
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
23
89 111 m318
3
19-24
II
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
23
89 111 m318
3
19-24
11
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
23
89 111 m319
3
19-24
11
1 Quartz
0.8 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
19
90 60 m320
1
0-13
I
2 Quartzite
46.6 Fire cracked rock
19
90 60 m321
1
0-13
1
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
19
90 60 m322
1
0-13
I
4 Rhyolite
2.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
19
90 60 m322
1
0-13
1
3 Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
19
90 60 m323
1
0-13
1
4 Rhyolite
1.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
19
90 60 m323
1
0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
19
90 60 m324
1
0-13
1
4 Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E #
Level
(cm)
Stratum
Total Material
(9) Artifact
19
90
60 m324
1
0-13
1
4 Rhyolite
9.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
19
90
60 a325
I
0-42
Feature 1
1 Rhyolite
3.9 Biface, Stage 3 lateral fragment
19
90
60 a325
1
0-42
Feature 2
1 Rhyolite
H.4 Biface, Stage 3 proximal fragment
19
90
60 m326
1
0-42
Feature 2
1 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
19
90
60 m326
1
0-42
Feature 2
3 Rhyolite
3.9 Tertiary biface thinningflake, 2-3 cm
19
90
60 m327
1
0-42
Feature 2
2 Rhyolite
0.4 Terdaryflake fragment, 1-2 cm
19
90
60 m327
I
0-42
Feature 2
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiaryflake fragment, 1-2 cm
19
90
60 m328
1
0-42
Feature 2
1 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
19
90
60 m328
1
0-42
Feature 2
1 Quartz
2.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
44
90
89 a329
1
6-18
I
1 Quartz
6.0 Scraper, side
44
90
89 m330
1
6-18
I
1 Quartzite
100.6 Core, amorphous
44
90
89 m331
1
6-19
1
1 Quartz
76.6 Core, bipolar
44
90
89 m332
1
6-I8
1
2 Quartz
176.9 Fire cracked rock
44
90
89 m333
1
6-18
1
1 Rhyolite
0.9 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m334
1
6-18
1
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m334
1
6-I8
1
2 Rhyolite
2.7 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
44
90
89 m335
1
6-I8
1
5 Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
LJ 44
90
89 m335
1
6-18
1
3 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
44
90
89 m335
1
6-18
I
36 Rhyolite
13.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m335
1
6-18
I
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m335
1
6-18
1
1 Chalcedon
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
y
44
90
89 m335
1
6-18
1
7 Rhyolite
13.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
44
90
89 m336
1
6-19
1
3 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
44
90
89 m336
1
6-18
1
23 Rhyolite
6.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m336
1
6-I8
1
2 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m336
1
648
1
5 Rhyolite
6.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
44
90
89 m336
1
6-18
1
2 Quartz
2.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
44
90
89 m336
1
6-18
1
1 Rhyolite
2.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
44
90
89 m337
1
6-18
1
5 Rhyolite
1.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, I-2 cm
44
90
89 m337
1
6-18
I
6 Quartz
3.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m337
1
6-18
1
7 Rhyolite
14.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
44
90
89 m337
1
6-18
1
1 Quartz
3.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
44
90
89 m337
1
6-18
1
2 Rhyolite
12.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
44
90
89 m337
1
6-18
1
1 Quartz
10.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
44
90
89 m337
1
6-18
1
1 Rhyolite
27.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
44
90
89 m338
2
18-23
IA
1 Quartz
30.0 Fire cracked rock
44
90
89 m339
2
18-23
IA
I Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m340
2
18-23
IA
3 Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m341
2
18-23
]A
I Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiaryunspecialized flake, <1 cm
44
90
89 m341
2
18-23
IA
I Quartz
0.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
44
90
89 m342
3
24-31
11
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
44
90
89 m343
3
24-31
If
1 Quartz
1.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 a344
1
I-11
I
1 Rhyolite
3.3 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
24
90 111 m345
1
1-11
1
1 Quartz
74.2 Core, bipolar
24
90 111 m346
I
1-11
1
5 Quartz
256.9 Fire cracked rock
24
90 111 m347
1
1-11
1
1 Rhyolite
3.5 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
24
90 111 m348
1
1-11
1
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
24
90 111 m348
1
1-11
I
2 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
24
90 111 m348
1
1-11
1
13 Rhyolite
3.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m348
1
1-I I
1
3 Quartz
0.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m348
1
1-11
1
2 Rhyolite
4.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
24
90 111 m349
1
1-11
1
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
u
Comments
Longitudinal
fracture
Transversefracture
Perverse fracture

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact Comments
24
90 111 m349
1
1-11
1 5
Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m349
I
1-11
1 3
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
24
90 1.11 m349
1
1-11
1 2
Rhyolite
5.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
24
90 111 m349
1
1-11
1 1
Rhyolite
2.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
24
90 111 m350
1
I-11
I 2
Quartz
1.3 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m350
1
1-11
I 1
Quartz
30.4 Tertiary shatter, >5 cm
24
90 111 m351
1
1-1 I
1 2
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m351
1
1-11
1 8
Quartz
5.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m351
1
1-11
1 1
Rhyolite
1.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
24
90 I H m351
1
1-11
I 1
Quartz
1.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
24
90 111 m351
1
1-11
1 1
Quartz
10.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
24
90 111 m351
1
1-11
1 1
Rhyolite
5.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
24
90 111 m352
2
11-18
IA 4
Rhyolite
1.1 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m352
2
I 1-18
IA 1
Quartz
0.6 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m353
2
I 1-18
IA 1
Rhyolite
0.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m354
2
I 1-I8
IA I
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m355
2
11-I8
IA 3
Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
24
90 111 m355
2
11-18
IA 1
Rhyolite
2.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
24
90 111 m356
3
18-24
IA 1
Quartz
6.6 Fire cracked rock
24
90 111 m357
3
18-24
IA I
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
24
90 111 m358
3
18-24
IA I
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
20
91 60 m359
1
+1-13
1 9
Quartz
543.7 Fire cracked rock
20
91 60 m360
1
+1-13
1 1
Quartzite
14.0 Primary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
20
91 60 m361
1
+1-13
1 1
Rhyolite
1.8 Secondary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
20
9i 60 m362
i
*i-13
i 1
Rhyoiite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
20
91 60 m362
1
+1-13
1 10
Rhyolite
3.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
20
91 60 m362
1
+1-13
1 2
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
20
91 60 m362
1
+1-13
1 5
Rhyolite
9.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
20
91 60 m363
1
+I-13
I 2
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
20
91 60 m363
I
+1-13
I 17
Rhyolite
4.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
20
91 60 m363
1
+1-13
1 4
Rhyolite
7.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
20
91 60 m364
1
+1-13
I 2
Quartz
2.9 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
20
91 60 m364
1
+1-13
1 3
Quartz
13.0 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
20
91 60 m365
1
+1-13
1 1
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
20
91 60 m365
1
+1-13
1 1
Quartz
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
20
91 60 m365
1
+1-13
1 2
Rhyolite
7.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
20
91 60 m365
1
+1-13
1 1
Quartz
2.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
20
91 60 m365
I
+I-l3
1 1
Quartz
8.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
33
91 111 a366
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
16.3 Biface, Stage 1 distal fragment Hinge fracture
33
91 111 m367
1
0-16
1 10
Quartz
552.2 Fire cracked rock
33
91 111 m367
1
0-16
1 1
Quartzite
226.4 Fire cracked rock
33
91 111 m368
1
0-16
1 8
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
33
91 111 m368
1
0-16
1 3
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
33
91 111 m368
1
0-16
I 22
Rhyolite
10.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
33
91 111 m368
1
0-16
1 8
Quartz
3.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
33
91 111 m368
1
0-I6
I 4
Rhyolite
6.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
33
91 111 m369
1
0-16
1 3
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
33
91 111 m369
1
0-16
I 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
33
91 111 m369
1
0-16
I 15
Rhyolite
5.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
33
91 111 m369
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
33
91 I H m369
1
0-16
1 2
Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
33
91 111 m370
1
0-16
I t
Quartz
3.4 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
33
91 111 m370
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
15.5 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
33
91 1 l t m370
I
0-16
1 1
Other
18.9 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
33
91 111 m37I
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <t cm
33
91 111 m37I
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
33
91 111 m371
1
0-I6
I 4
Quartz
3.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
33
91 111 m37I
1
0-16
1 3
Quartz
9.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
33
91 111 m371
I
0-16
I 4
Rhyolite
23.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
33
91 111 m37I
1
0-16
1 2
Rhyolite
32.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
33
91 111 m372
2
16-21
IA 1
Quartz
2.4 Fire cracked rock
i.-

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
Comments
33
91 111 m373
2
16-21
IA 1
Quartz.
0.4 Tertiary bipolar flake, 1-2 cm
33
91 111 m374
2
16-21
IA 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
33
91 111 m375
2
16-21
IA 3
Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
33
91 111 m376
3
21-26
11 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
42
92 122 m377
I
0-13
1 2
Quartz
11.7 Core, fragment
42
92 122 m378
1
0-13
1 1
Other
52.0 Unmodified chunk
42
92 122 m379
1
0-13
1 1
Quartz
26.1 Fire cracked rock
42
92 122 m380
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
3.0 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
42
92 122 m381
1
0-13
1 2
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
42
92 122 m381
1
0-13
1 2
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
42
92 122 m381
1
0-13
1 9
Rhyolite
4.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
42
92 122 m381
1
0-13
1 8
Quartz
3.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
42
92 122 m381
1
0-13
1 6
Rhyolite
11.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
42
92 122 m382
1
0-13
1 4
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
42
92 122 m382
1
0-13
I 16
Rhyolite
6.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
42
92 122 m382
1
0-13
1 5
Quartz
1.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
42
92 122 m382
1
0-13
1 4
Rhyolite
14.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
42
92 122 m382
1
0-13
1 1
Rhyolite
3.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
42
92 122 m383
1
0-13
1 4
Rhyolite
3.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
42
92 122 m383
1
0-13
I 4
Quartz
3.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
42
92 122 m383
1
0-13
I 3
Rhyolite
6.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
42
92 122 m383
1
0-13
1 1
Quartz
1.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
42
92 122 m383
1
0-13
1 2
Rhyolite
11.7 Tertiary unspccialized flake, 34 cm
42
92 122 m384
2
13-18
11 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
42
92 122 m384
2
13-18
11 I
Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
42
92 122 m384
2
13-18
11 1
Rhyolite
1.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
42
92 122 m385
2
13-18
if 2
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 a386
1
0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
5.5 Projectile point, Small Savannah River
Tip missing;
Stemmed
barh/comer break
and impact fractures
65
93 94 a387
1
0-19
I 1
Rhyolite
16.3 Biface, Stage 3 proximal fragment
Transverse fracture
65
93 94 m388
1
0-19
1 1
Quartz
16.6 Core, fragment
65
93 94 m389
1
0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
1.8 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
65
93 94 m390
1
0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
1.7 Primary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m391
1
0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
0.8 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m392
1
0-19
I 1
Rhyolite
0.9 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m393
1
0-19
I 2
Rhyolite
3.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
65
93 94 m394
1
0-19
1 4
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
65
93 94 m394
1
0-19
1 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
65
93 94 m394
1
0-19
1 45
Rhyolite
21.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m394
1
0-19
1 6
Quartz
3.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m394
1
0-19
I 17
Rhyolite
25.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
65
93 94 m394
1
0-19
I 2
Rhyolite
7.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
65
93 94 m395
1
0-19
I 3
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
65
93 94 m395
1
0-19
1 25
Rhyolite
9.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m395
1
0-19
I 3
Rhyolite
3.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 9
Rhyolite
5.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 2
Quartz
2.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 1
Chalcedon
0.3 Tertiary unspecializcd flake, 1-2 cm
y
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 15
Rhyolite
28.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 1
Quartz
2.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 5
Rhyolite
19.9 Tertiary unspccialized flake, 3-4 cm
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 1
Quartz
11.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
7.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
65
93 94 m396
1
0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
12.0 Tertiary unspecializcd flake, >5 cm
65
93 94 m397
2
19-22
IA I
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m397
2
19-22
IA 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m398
3
22-28
If 1
Rhyolite
1.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
65
93 94 m399
3
22-28
11 1
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum
Total Material
(g) Artifact
65
93 94 m400
22-48
root dist.
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m401
22-48
root dist.
I Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
65
93 94 m401
- 2248
root dist.
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
65
93 94 m402
- 2248
root disc.
I Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m403
1 0-16
1
1 Rhyolite
1.0 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m404
1 0-16
I
2 Rhyolite
1.8 Primary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m405
1 0-16
I
1 Rhyolite
0. l Secondary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
66
93 102 m405
1 0-16
I
1 Rhyolite
1.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m406
1 0-16
I
2 Rhyolite
0.4 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m407
1 0-16
1
3 Rhyolite
22.8 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
66
93 102 m408
1 0-16
1
8 Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
66
93 102 m408
1 0-16
I
38 Rhyolite
14.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m408
1 0-16
I
2 Quartz
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m408
1 0-16
1
4 Rhyolite
4.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
66
93 102 m409
1 0-I6
1
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
66
93 102 m409
1 0-16
1
14 Rhyolite
3.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m409
1 0-16
1
3 Rhyolite
4.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
66
93 102 m410
1 0-16
I
9 Rhyolite
4.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m410
1 0-16
1
I Quartz
2.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
66
93 102 m410
1 0-16
1
5 Rhyolite
13.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
66
93 102 m410
1 0-16
I
2 Quartz
2.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
66
93 102 m410
1 0-16
I
1 Rhyolite
20.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake,>5 cm
58
95 65 a4l 1
1 0-20
I
1 Rhyolite
13.4 Biface, Stage 2 proximal fragment
ty 58
95
65 a412
1
0-20
I
1 Rhyolite
8.9 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
58
95
65 m413
1
0-20
1
8 Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
58
95
65 m413
1
0-20
1
34 Rhyolite
11.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
58
95
65 m413
1
0-20
1
1 Other
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
58
95
65 m413
1
0-20
I
4 Rhyolite
5.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
58
95
65 m414
1
0-20
I
5 Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
58
95
65 m414
I
0-20
I
18 Rhyolite
7.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
58
95
65 m414
1
0-20
I
4 Rhyolite
6.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
58
95
65 m415
1
0-20
I
4 Rhyolite
2.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
58
95
65 m415
1
0-20
I
4 Rhyolite
5.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
58
95
65 m415
1
0-20
I
1 Quartz
1.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
58
95
65 m415
1
0-20
I
1 Rhyolite
2.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
58
95
65 m415
1
0-20
1
1 Other
6.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
58
95
65 m416
2
20-26
IA
1 Rhyolite
4.9 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
58
95
65 m417
2
20-26
IA
2 Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
58
95
65 m418
3
26-32
II
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
48
96
73 a419
1
0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
11.2 Retouched flake, side
48
96
73 m420
1
0-13
1
1 Rhyolite
54.3 Core, amorphous
48
96
73 m421
1
0-13
1
1 Quartz
0.7 Primary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
48
96
73 m422
1
0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
48
96
73 m422
1
0-13
1
10 Rhyolite
2.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
48
96
73 m422
1
0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
1.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
48
96
73 m423
1
0-13
1
9 Rhyolite
4.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
48
96
73 m423
1
0-13
I
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <l cm
48
96
73 m424
1
0-13
1
5 Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
48
96
73 m424
1
0-13
1
1 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
48
96
73 m424
1
0-13
I
2 Rhyolite
5.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
48
96
73 m425
2
13-18
IA
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
48
96
73 m426
3
18-23
II
1 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
48
96
73 m427
3
18-23
I1
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
7
96
89 a428
1
0-16
I
1 Rhyolite
10.1 Biface, Stage 3 proximal fragment
7
96
89 m429
1
0-16
1
3 Rhyolite
1.7 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
7
96
89 m429
l
0-16
1
4 Rhyolite
5.4 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
7
96
89 m429
1
0-16
1
2 Rhyolite
7.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
7
96
89 m430
1
0-16
1
5 Rhyolite
2.0 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
Comments
Longitudianal,
hinge, transverse
and recent fractures
Transverse fracture
Hinge and
transverse fractures

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
7 96 89 m431
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m431
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
1.7 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m431
1
0-16
1 2
Rhyolite
21.6 Secondary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
7 96 89 m432
l
0-16
1 15
Rhyolite
1.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <l cm
7 96 89 m432
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
7 96 89 m432
1
0-16
1 74
Rhyolite
24.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m432
1
0-16
I 16
Quartz
8.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m432
1
0-16
I 16
Rhyolite
23.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m432
I
0-16
I 2
Quartz
4.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m432
1
0-16
I 2
Other
2.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m432
1
0-16
1 2
Rhyolite
5.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
7 96 89 m433
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
3.6 Tertiary bipolar flake, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m434
1
0-16
1 7
Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
7 96 89 m434
l
0-16
1 55
Rhyolite
I8.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m434
1
0-16
I 4
Quartz
1.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m434
1
0-16
1 I
Quartz
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m435
1
0-16
1 4
Quartz
3.7 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m435
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
LI Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m435
l
0-16
I 2
Quartz
11.3 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m435
1
0-I6
I 1
Quartz
12.2 Tertiary shatter, 3-4 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-16
1 12
Rhyolite
7.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-16
I 12
Quartz
7.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 .m436
I
0-16
1 5
Rhyolite
11.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-16
1 4
Quartz
16.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-I6
1 1
Rhyolite
1 5.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-16
1 2
Quartz
17.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
19.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
7 96 89 m436
1
0-16
I 1
Quartz
34.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
7 96 89 m437
2
16-21
[A I
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, I-2 cm
7 96 89 m437
2
16-21
IA I
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m437
2
16-21
]A 1
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
7 96 89 m438
2
16-21
IA 2
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m439
2
16-21
IA 1
Quartz
0.4 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m440
2
16-21
IA I
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
7 96 89 m441
3
21-31
11 1
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
36 96 105 a442
1
0-16
I 1
Rhyolite
4.4 Projectile point, Gypsy Stemmed
36 96 105 a443
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
11.1 Biface, Stage 2 medial fragment
36 96 105 a444
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
3.1 Biface, Stage 3 medial fragment
36 96 105 m445
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
0.4 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
36 96 105 m446
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
0.6 Primary unspecialized flake, I-2 cm
36 96 105 m447
I
0-16
I 1
Rhyolite
1.3 Secondary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
36 96 105 m448
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
0.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
36 96 105 m448
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
2.8 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
36 96 105 m449
1
0-16
1 10
Rhyolite
0.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <l cm
36 96 105 m449
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
36 96 105 m449
1
0-16
I 44
Rhyolite
13.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, I-2 cm
36 96 105 m449
1
0-16
1 5
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
36 96 105 m449
1
0-16
I 11
Rhyolite
15.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
36 96 105 m449
1
0-16
1 3
Rhyolite
8.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
36 96 105 m450
1
0-16
1 6
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <l cm
36 96 105 m450
1
0-16
1 27
Rhyolite
9.1 Tertiary flake fragment, I-2 cm
36 96 105 m450
1
0-16
1 6
Rhyolite
11.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
36 96 105 m450
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
4.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
36 96 105 m451
1
0-16
1 1
Rhyolite
10.4 Tertiary shatter, 3-4 cm
36 96 105 m452
1
0-16
1 5
Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
36 96 105 m452
1
0-16
I 3
Rhyolite
4.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
36 96 105 m452
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
4.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
36 96 105 m452
1
0-16
I 1
Rhyolite
5.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
Comments
Hinge, transverse
and recent fractures
Transverse fracture

0
31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
36
96 105 m452
1
0-16
1 1
Quartz
5.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
36
96 105 m452
l
0-16
1 2
Rhyolite
20.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
36
96 105 m453
2
16-22
IA I
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
36
96 105 m454
3
22-28
If 1
Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m455
1
I 1-22
I 1
Quartz
28.3 Fire cracked rock
37
96 106 m456
1
I 1-22
I 2
Rhyolite
1.5 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m456
1
11-22
1 1
Rhyolite
1.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
37
96 106 m456
1
11-22
I 2
Rhyolite
9.5 Secondary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
37
96 106 m457
1
11-22
I 1
Quartz
0.7 Secondary shatter, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m458
1
11-22
1 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m458
1
11-22
1 2
Rhyolite
5.9 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
37
96 106 m459
1
11-22
1 4
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
37
96 106 m459
1
1 I-22
1 23
Rhyolite
8.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m459
1
11-22
1 8
Rhyolite
10.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
37
96 106 m460
1
I 1-22
1 4
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
37
96 106 m460
1
11-22
1 21
Rhyolite
6.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m460
1
11-22
1 3
Rhyolite
5.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
37
96 106 m461
1
11-22
I 1
Quartz
0.6 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m462
1
11-22
I 4
Quartz
0.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
37
96 106 m462
1
I 1-22
1 9
Rhyolite
5.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m462
1
11-22
1 5
Quartz
1.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m462
1
11-22
1 4
Rhyolite
7.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
37
96 106 m462
1
11-22
I 2
Quartz
5.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
37
96 106 m462
1
11-22
1 1
Rhyolite
2.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
37
96 106 m463
2
22-27
IA 1
Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <l cm
37
96 106 m464
2
22-27
IA 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m464
2
22-27
]A I
Quartz
1.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m465
3
27-32
]A/11 I
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
37
96 106 m466
3
27-32
IA/II I
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 a467
1
0-15
1 1
Rhyolite
6.1 Projectile point, Piscataway, tip missing
8
97 89 a468
1
0-15
I 1
Rhyolite
4.7 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment
8
97 89 m469
1
0-15
I 1
Quartz
15.2 Core, bipolar fragment
8
97 89 m470
1
0-15
1 4
Quartz
121.6 Fire cracked rock
8
97 89 m470
1
0-15
1 1
Quartzite
104.2 Fire cracked rock
8
97 89 m471
1
0-15
1 1
Quartz
1.4 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
8
97 89 m472
1
0-15
1 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 m472
1
0-15
I 2
Rhyolite
3.1 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
8
97 89 m472
1
0-15
1 1
Rhyolite
2.6 Secondary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
8
97 89 m473
1
0-15
1 2
Rhyolite
0.7 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 m473
1
0-15
I 1
Rhyolite
1.9 Secondary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
8
97 89 m474
1
0-15
I 2
Rhyolite
1.1 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 m474
1
0-15
I 2
Rhyolite
2.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
8
97 89 m475
1
0-15
I 12
Rhyolite
1.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
8
97 89 m475
1
0-15
1 3
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
8
97 89 m475
1
0-15
I 58
Rhyolite
22.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 m475
1
0-15
1 13
Quartz
4.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 m475
1
0-15
1 18
Rhyolite
28.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
8
97 89 m475
1
0-15
I 1
Rhyolite
3.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
8
97 89 m476
1
0-15
1 5
Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
8
97 89 m476
1
0-15
1 2
Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
8
97 89 m476
1
0-15
1 41
Rhyolite
11.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 m476
1
0-15
1 4
Quartz
1.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 m476
1
0-15
1 3
Rhyolite
3.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
8
97 89 m477
1
0-15
I 1
Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
8
97 89 m477
1
0-15
1 1
Quartz
2.0 Tertiary shatter, I-2 cm
8
97 89 m477
1
0-15
1 1
Quartz
27.0 Tertiary shatter, 4-5 cm
8
97 89 m478
1
0-15
I 1
Quartz
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
8
97 89 m478
1
0-15
I 8
Rhyolite
5.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
8 97 99 m478
1
0-15
1 6
Quartz
6.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
Comments
Transverse fracture;
base and lateral
grinding
Tranverse fracture

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
Comments
8
97 89 m478
1
0-15
I
2 Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
8
97 89 m478
1
0-15
1
3 Quartz
9.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
8
97 89 m478
1
0-15
I
3 Rhyolite
17.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
8
97 89 m478
1
0-15
1
1 Rhyolite
6.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
8
97
89 a479
2
15-22
IA
I Rhyolite
3.0 Retouched flake, side
8
97
89 m480
2
15-22
IA
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
8
97
89 m480
2
15-22
IA
1 Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
8
97
89 m4g1
2
15-22
IA
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
8
97
89 m482
2
15-22
IA
1 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
8
97
89 m483
3
22-32
if
t Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
8
97
89 m484
3
22-32
11
1 Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
8
97
89 m485
3
22-32
it
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 a486
1
0-18
1
1 Rhyolite
12.1 Biface, Stage 3 proximal fragment
Hinge fracture
53
97
99 a486
1
0-18
1
1 Rhyolite
13.4 Biface, Stage 3 proximal fragment
Indeterminate
fracture
53
97
99 m487
1
0-I8
1
1 Quartz
18.0 Core, fragment
53
97
99 m488
1
0-18
1
1 Quartzite
51.3 Fire cracked rock
53
97
99 m489
1
0-18
1
1 Rhyolite
0.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m489
1
0-18
1
3 Rhyolite
3.7 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m490
1
0-18
1
1 Rhyolite
1.1 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m491
1
0-18
I
3 Rhyolite
1.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m491
1
0-I8
1
5 Rhyolite
7.9 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m491
1
0-18
1
2 Rhyolite
7.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
53
97
99 m492
1
0-18
1
28 Rhyolite
2.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
53
97
99 m492
1
0-18
1
143 Rhyolite
54.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m492
1
0-I8
I
2 Quartz
1.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m492
1
0-18
1
2 Quartz
0.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
crystal
53
97
99 m492
1
0-18
1
37 Rhyolite
54.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m492
1
0-18
1
1 Quartz
1.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m492
1
0-18
1
1 Quartz
2.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
crystal
53
97
99 m492
1
0-18
1
I Rhyolite
3.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
53
97
99 m493
1
0-18
1
5 Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
53
97
99 m493
1
0-18
1
70 Rhyolite
22.0 Tertiary flake fragment, I-2 cm
53
97
99 m493
1
0-18
I
1 Quartz
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m493
1
0-18
1
9 Rhyolite
13.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m494
1
0-18
1
1 Quartz
1.4 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m494
1
0-18
1
1 Other
25.8 Tertiary shatter, 4-5 cm
53
97
99 m495
1
0-18
I
24 Rhyolite
16.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m495
1
0-18
1
3 Quartz
0.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m495
1
0-18
1
27 Rhyolite
57.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m495
1
0-18
1
4 Quartz
8.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m495
1
0-18
1
9 Rhyolite
34.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
53
97
99 m495
1
0-18
I
2 Quartz
14.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
53
97
99 m495
1
0-18
1
3 Rhyolite
38.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
53
97
99 m495
1
0-18
1
1 Quartz
38.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
53
97
99 m496
2
18-27
IA
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m497
2
18-27
IA
t Rhyolite
1.6 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m498
2
18-27
IA
3 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
53
97
99 m498
2
18-27
lA
19 Rhyolite
6.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m498
2
I8-27
IA
2 Quartz
0.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m498
2
18-27
IA
I Rhyolite
1.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m498
2
18-27
IA
I Rhyolite
3.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
53
97
99 m499
2
18-27
IA
3 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
53
97
99 m499
2
18-27
IA
10 Rhyolite
2.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m499
2
18-27
IA
I Rhyolite
1.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
53 97
99 m500
2
18-27
IA
1 Quartz
1.4 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
53 97
99 m501
2
18-27
IA
3 Rhyolite
1.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
53 97
99 m501
2
18-27
IA
2 Quartz
1.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
53 97
99 m501
2
18-27
IA
1 Rhyolite
3.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU
N
E #
Level
(cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact Comments
53
97
99 m502
3
27-32
11 4 Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m503
3
27-32
11 2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
53
97
99 m503
3
27-32
If 1 Rhyolite
2.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m504
3
27-32
II 1 Rhyolite
2.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
53
97
99 m505
4
32-37
lI 1 Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
27 100
97 a506
1
0-19
I 1 Rhyolite
6.4 Projectile point, Bear island, proximal Transverse fracture;
fragment lateral edge grinding
27 100 97 a507
1 0-19
I 1
Rhyolite
27 100 97 a508
1 0-19
1 t
Rhyolite
27 100 97 a509
1 0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m510
1 0-19
1 4
Quartz
27 100
97 m511
1 0-19
I 2
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m5ll
1 0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m512
1 0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m513
1 0-19
1 3
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m513
1 0-19
1 6
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m513
1 0-19
I 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m514
1 0-19
1 3
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m514
1 0-19
1 4
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m514
1 0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m515
1 0-19
I 41
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m515
1 0-19
1 4
Quartz
27 100
97 m515
1 0-19
1 140
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m515
1 0-1.9
1 22
Quartz
27 100
97 m515
1 0-19
1 26
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m515
I 0-19
1 4
Quartz
27 100
97 m515
1 0-19
1 2
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m515
1 0-19
1 1
Quartz
27 100
97 m515
I 0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m516
1 0-19
1 1
Quartz
27 100
97 m517
1 0-19
1 15
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m517
1 0-19
1 1
Quartz
27 100
97 m517
1 0-19
1 82
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m517
1 0-19
1 1
Quartz
27 100
97 m517
1 0-19
1 3
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m518
1 0-19
1 2
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m518
1 0-19
1 3
Quartz
27 100
97 m519
1 0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m519
1 0-I9
1 25
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m519
1 0-19
1 6
Quartz
27 100
97 m519
1 0-19
1 10
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m519
1 0-19
1 6
Quartz
27 100
97 m519
1 0-19
1 4
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m519
1 0-19
1 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m520
2 19-24
IA I
Quartz
27 100
97 m521
2 19-24
fA I
Quartz
27 100
97 m521
2 19-24
IA 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m522
2 19-24
IA 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m522
2 19-24
IA 2
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m523
3 24-29
11 I
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m524
3 24-29
11 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m524
3 24-29
Il 1
Rhyolite
27 100
97 m524
3 24-29
11 1
Quartz
27 100
97 m524
3 24-29
11 1
Quartz
27 100
97 m525
4 29-34
11 t
Rhyolite
30 100 98 a526
1 7-21
1 1
Rhyolite
5.0 Scraper, end
2.2 Biface, Stage 2 distal fragment Perverse fracture
6.6 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment Transverse fracture;
possible
resharpening on one
side
141.6 Fire cracked rock
I.1 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
1.5 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
1.7 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
1.3 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
8.9 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
2.1 Secondary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
1.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
7.1 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
12.0 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
4.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
55.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
8.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
38.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
9.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
6.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
4.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
8.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
12.2 Tertiary bipolar flake, 34 cm
1.5 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
22.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
3.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
0.9 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
6.7 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
12.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
6.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
19.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
16.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
15.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
7.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
0.4 Secondary shatter, 1-2 cm
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <t cm
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
0.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
2.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
8.0 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment Hinge and perverse
fractures

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
TU N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum
30 100 98 m527
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m528
1 7-21
l
30 100 98 a529
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m530
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m531
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m532
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m532
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m533
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m533
1 7-21
[
30 100 98 m534
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m535
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m535
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m535
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m536
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m536
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m537
I 7-21
1
30 100 98 m537
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
[
30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
1
), 30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m538
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m539
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m540
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m540
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m540
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m540
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m541
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m541
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m541
1 7-21
30 100 98 m541
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m541
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m542
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m542
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m542
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m542
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m542
l 7-21
I
30 100 98 m542
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m542
1 7-21
1
30 100 98 m542
1 7-21
I
30 100 98 m543
2 21-27
IA
30 100 98 m544
2 21-27
IA
30 100 98 m544
2 21-27
IA
30 100 98 m545
2 21-27
IA
30 100 98 m546
2 21-27
lA
30 100 98 m546
2 21-27
IA
30 100 98 m546
2 21-27
IA
30 100 98 m547
3 27-32
If
30 100 98 m547
3 27-32
11
6 100 121 a548
1 0-18
I
6 100 121 a549
1 0-18
1
6 100 121 m550
1 0-18
[
6 100 121 m551
1 0-18
I
6 100 121 m552
1 0-18
1
6 100 121 m552
1 0-18
I
Total Material
I Quartz
1 Rhyolite
1 Quartzite
8 Quartz
2 Other
I Rhyolite
2 Rhyolite
I Rhyolite
I Rhyolite
2 Quartz
2 Rhyolite
3 Rhyolite
1 Rhyolite
1 Rhyolite
1 Rhyolite
4 Rhyolite
I Quartz
9 Rhyolite
2 Quartz
114 Rhyolite
17 Quartz
I Quartz
crystal
37 Rhyolite
2 Quartz
5 Rhyolite
1 Quartz
1 Quartz
10 Rhyolite
110 Rhyolite
8 Quartz
17 Rhyolite
4 Quartz
2 Rhyolite
2 Quartz
I Rhyolite
I Quartz
1 Rhyolite
3 Quartz
26 Rhyolite
18 Quartz
14 Rhyolite
5 Quartz
4 Rhyolite
1 Rhyolite
6 Rhyolite
2 Rhyolite
2 Rhyolite
I Quartz
I Rhyolite
2 Quartz
1 Rhyolite
I Rhyolite
1 Quartz
1 Glass
I Rhyolite
1 Quartz
I Rhyolite
I Rhyolite
I Quartz
Weight
(g) Artifact
45.0 Core, bipolar
32.8 Core, fragment
232.9 Hammerstone fragment
189.8 Fire cracked rock
63.5 Unmodified chunk
0.2 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
2.6 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
0.3 Primary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
0.8 Primary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
6.9 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
0.2 Secondary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
1.8 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
2.7 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
0.1 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
1.9 Secondary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
8.7 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
0.9 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
0.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
46.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
8.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
56.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
3.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
16.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
3.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
0.4 Tertiary bipolar flake, 1-2 cm
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
31.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
4.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
18.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
4.2 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
4.8 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
4.2 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
6.3 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
11.6 Tertiary shatter, 34 cm
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
0.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
9.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
7.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
28.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
17.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
23.1 Tertiary unspecialized Flake, 3-4 cm
15.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
1.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment; 1-2 cm
0.6 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
1.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
4.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
0.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
7.1 Glass, clear container
17.4 Biface, Stage 2 distal fragment
29.1 Core, amorphous
0.2 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
1.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
5.3 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
Comments
Hinge and
transverse fractures

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU N E # Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact Comments
6 100 121 m553
1 0-18
1
3 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
6 100 121 m553
1 0-18
I
2 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
6 100 121 m553
1 0-18
I
6 Rhyolite
2.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
6 100 121 m553
1 0-18
1
7 Quartz
4.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
6 100 121 m553
1 0-18
1
2 Chalcedon
0.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
y
6 100 121 m553
1 0-18
1
6 Rhyolite
9.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
6 100 121 m553
1 0-18
1
1 Rhyolite
40.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, >5 cm
6 100 121 m554
1 0-18
1
5 Rhyolite
2.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
6 100 121 m554 1
0-I8
I
4 Quartz
1.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
6 100 121 m554 1
0-18
I
1 Rhyolite
1.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
6 100 121 m555 1
0-18
1
4 Quartz
5.2 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
6 100 121 m556 1
0-I8
I
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
6 100 121 m556 1
0-18
I
1 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
6 100 121 m556 I
0-18
1
9 Quartz
6.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
6 100 121 m556 1
0-18
I
2 Rhyolite
9.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
6 100 121 m556 1
0-18
1
1 Quartz
2.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 a557 1
5-17
1
1 Rhyolite
12.0 Projectile point, Badin
28 101 97 m558 1
5-17
[
1 Quartz
26.7 Core, bipolar
28 101 97 m559 1
5-17
I
1 Quartzite
104.2 Fire cracked rock
28 101 97 m559 1
5-17
1
4 Quartzite
121.6 Fire cracked rock
28 101 97 m560 1
5-17
1
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Primary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m561 1
5-17
1
1 Rhyolite
2.4 Primary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
28 101 97 m562 1
5-17
1
2 Rhyolite
1.3 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m562 1
5-17
1
8 Rhyolite
18.5 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 m562 1
5-17
I
I Rhyolite
8.7 Secondary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
28 101 97 m563 1
5-17
1
1 Rhyolite
0.2 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m564 1
5-17
1
2 Rhyolite
1.7 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m564 1
5-17
1
2 Rhyolite
4.4 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 m564 1
5-17
1
1 Rhyolite
1.6 Secondary unspccializcd flake, 3.4 cm
28 101 97 m565 1
5-17
I
23 Rhyolite
2.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
28 101 97 m565 1
5-17
1
5 Quartz
0.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
28 101 97 m565 1
5-17
1
113 Rhyolite
45.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m565 1
5-17
1
14 Quartz
7.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m565 1
5-17
1
30 Rhyolite
45.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 m565 1
5-17
1
1 Quartz
2.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 m565 1
5-17
1
4 Rhyolite
15.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
28 101 97 m566 1
5-17
I
6 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
28 101 97 m566 1
5-17
1
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
28 101 97 m566 1
5-17
1
66 Rhyolite
18.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m566 1
5-17
I
2 Quartz
0.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m566 1
5-17
1
4 Rhyolite
6.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 m567 1
5-17
1
19 Rhyolite
8.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m567 1
5-17
[
14 Quartz
9.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m567 1
5-17
I
11 Rhyolite
24.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 m567 1
5-17
1
2 Quartz
8.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 m567 1
5-17
1
3 Rhyolite
16.7 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
28 101 97 m567 1
5-17
1
1 Quartz
28.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
28 101 97 m567 1
5-17
1
1 Rhyolite
19.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
28 101 97 m568 2
17-22
lA
5 Rhyolite
1.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m568 2
17-22
IA
2 Rhyolite
1.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
28 101 97 m569 2
17-22
[A
I Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary bipolar flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m570 2
17-22
IA
3 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
28 101 97 m570 2
17-22
IA
I Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m571 2
17-22
IA
I Quartz
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
28 101 97 m571 2
17-22
IA
I Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m571 2
17-22
IA
2 Quartz
0.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
28 101 97 m572 3
22-27
II
1 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 a573 1
6-19
I
1 Rhyolite
6.7 Biface, Stage 3 distal fragment Hinge and
29 101 98 m574 1
6-19
1
1 Quartz
transverse fractures
3.0 Core, fragment

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum
Total Material
(g) Artifact
29 101 98 m575
1 6-19
1
2 Quartz
95.0 Fire cracked rock
29 101 98 m576
1 6-19
1
1 Quartz
0.1 Primary flake fragment, <1 cm
29 101 98 m577
1 6-19
1
4 Rhyolite
2.5 Secondary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m577
1 6-19
1
1 Rhyolite
3.0 Secondary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
29 101 98 m577
1 6-19
1
2 Rhyolite
6.4 Secondary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
29 101 98 m578
1 6-19
1
2 Rhyolite
0.6 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m579
1 6-19
1
1 Rhyolite
1.3 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m579
1 6-19
1
1 Rhyolite
3.1 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
29 101 98 m579
1 6-19
1
1 Quartz
4.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
crystal
29 101 98 m579
I 6-19
1
1 Rhyolite
5.7 Secondary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
29 101 98 m579
1 6-19
1
1 Rhyolite
18.8 Secondary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
29 101 98 m580
1 6-I9
1
12 Rhyolite
l .I Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
29 101 98 m580
1 6-19
I
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <t cm
29 101 98 m580
1 6-19
1
88 Rhyolite
35.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m580
1 6-19
1
10 Quartz
4.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m580
.1 6-19
1
16 Rhyolite
25.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
29 101 98 m580
1 6-19
1
2 Quartz
2.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
29 101 98 m580
1 6-19
1
3 Rhyolite
8.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
29 101 98 m581
1 6-19
1
6 Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
29 101 98 m581
1 6-19
1
34 Rhyolite
10.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m581
1 6-19
1
2 Quartz
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m581
1 6-19
1
4 Rhyolite
5.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
29 101 98 m581
1 6-19
1
1 Rhyolite
10.9 Tertiary flake fragment, >5 cm
29 101 98 m582
1 6-19
1
2 Quartz
36.2 Tertiary shatter, 4-5 cm
29 101 98 m583
1 6-19
1
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
29 101 98 m583
I 6-19
1
10 Rhyolite
3.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m583
1 6-19
1
9 Quartz
6.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m583
1 6-19
1
11 Rhyolite
18.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
29 101 98 m583
1 6-19
1
5 Rhyolite
19.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
29 101 98 m583
1 6-19
1
2 Rhyolite
16.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
29 101 98 m583
1 6-19
1
1 Rhyolite
19.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
29 101 98 m584
2 19-30
IA
2 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
29 101 98 m584
2 19-30
IA
1 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m584
2 19-30
fA
2 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m585
2 19-30
IA
2 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m585
2 19-30
IA
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m586
- 18-42
Feature 4
2 Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m587
- I842
Feature 4
3 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
29 101 98 m588
- 1842
Feature4
1 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
49 102 59 m589
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
49 102 59 m589
1 0-14
1
12 Rhyolite
4.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
49 102 59 m589
I 0-14
I
4 Rhyolite
4.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
49 102 59 m590
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
5.7 Tertiary bipolar flake, 34 cm
49 102 59 m591
1 0-14
1
6 Rhyolite
1.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
49 102 59 m591
1 0-14
1
3 Rhyolite
6.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
49 102 59 m592
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
1.8 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
49 102 59 m593
1 0-14
I
2 Quartz
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
49 102 59 m593 1
0-14
1
3 Rhyolite
1.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
49 102 59 m593 1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
49 102 59 m593 1
0-14
1
2 Rhyolite
3.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
49 102 59 m593 1
0-14
1
1 Quartz
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
49 102 59 m593 1
49 102
0-14
1
l Rhyolite
9.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
59 m594 2
49 102
14-23
IA
1 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
59 m594 2
47 104
14-23
IA
I Rhyolite
10.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
83 m595 1
0-14
1
4 Quartz
71.1 Fire cracked rock
47 104 83 m596 1
47 104
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
1.3 Primary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
83 m596 1
47 104
0-14
1
1 Quartz
10.6 Primary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
83 m597 1
47 104
0-14
1
3 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
83 m597 1
47 104
0-14
1
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
83 m597 1
0-14
1
16 Rhyolite
7.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
Comments

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU N E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(9) Artifact
47 104 83 m597
1 0-14
1
2 Quartz
1.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m597
1 0-14
1
4 Rhyolite
4.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
47 104 83 m597
1 0-14
I
3 Rhyolite
11.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
47 104 83 m598
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
0.7 Tertiary bipolar flake, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m598
1 0-14
I
l Quartz
1.5 Tertiary bipolar flake, 2-3 cm
47 104 83 m599
1 0-14
I
3 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
47 104 83 m599
1 0-14
I
11 Rhyolite
4.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m599
1 0-14
I
2 Rhyolite
2.4 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
47 104 83 m599
1 0-14
I
2 Rhyolite
10.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
47 104 83 m599
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
5.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 3-4 cm
47 104 83 m600
1 0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m600
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
0.6 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m600
1 0-14
I
2 Rhyolite
7.1 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
47 104 83 m601
1 0-14
1
4 Rhyolite
1.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m601
1 0-14
1
4 Quartz
1.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m601
1 0-14
I
2 Rhyolite
2.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
47 104 83 m602
2 14-26
IA
I Rhyolite
0.8 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
47 104 83 m603
2 14-26
IA
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
47 104 83 m603
2 14-26
1A
2 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m604
2 14-26
IA
4 Rhyolite
1.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m605
2 14-26
IA
I Quartz
0.2 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
47 104 83 m606
2 14-26
IA
4 Quartz
1.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 a607
1 0-16
1
1 Rhyolite
7.3 Projectile point, Morrow Mountain
17 104 111 m608
1 0-16
1
4 Quartz
153.8 Fire cracked rock
17 104 111 m609
1 0-16
1
3 Rhyolite
1.2 Secondary biface thinning !lake, 1-2 cm
17 104 Ill m610
1 0-16
1
I Rhyolite
0.1 Secondary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m61 I
1 0-16
1
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m612
1 0-16
I
4 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
17 104 111 m612
1 0-16
1
2 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
17 104 111 m612
1 0-16
I
31 Rhyolite
8.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m612
1 0-16
1
12 Quartz
4.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m613
1 0-16
1
5 Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
17 104 111 m613
1 0-16
1
4 Quartz
0.5 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
17 104 111 m613
1 0-16
I
1 Chalcedon
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
17 104 111 m613
1 0-16
1
y
17 Rhyolite
4.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m613
1 0-16
1
4 Quartz
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m613
1 0-16
I
4 Rhyolite
6.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
17 104 111 m613
1 0-16
1
2 Rhyolite
5.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
17 104 111 m614 1
0-16
I
5 Rhyolite
3.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m614 1
0-16
1
4 Quartz
2.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m614 1
0-16
1
1 Chalcedon
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m614 1
0-16
1
y
5 Rhyolite
10.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
17 104 111 m614 1
0-16
I
2 Quartz
4.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
17 104 111 m614 1
0-16
1
1 Rhyolite
6.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
17 104 111 m615 2
16-21
If
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m615 2
16-21
11
2 Quartz
0.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
17 104 111 m616 2
16-21
11
I Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
54 105 92 a617 1
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
10.7 Biface, Stage 2
54 105 92 m618 1
54 105
0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
0.6 Primary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
92 m619 1
54 105 92
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
m619 I
54 105 92 m619 1
0-14
0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
1.5 Secondary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
54 105 92 m620 1
0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
24.9 Secondary unspecialized flake, >5 cm
54 105 92 m620 1
0-14
1
5 Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
54 105 92 m620 1
0-14
I
I
1 Quartz
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
54 105 92 m620 1
0-14
28 Rhyolite
13.9 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
54 105 92 m620 1
0-14
1
1
t Quartz
Q
1.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
54 105 92 m620 1
0-14
1
I Chert
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
6 Rhyolite
13.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
Comments
Tip missing; impact
fracture
Hinge fracture

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU N
E #
Level (cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
54 105
92 m620
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
3.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 4-5 cm
54 105
92 m621
1 0-14
1
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
54 105
92 m621
1 0-14
1
8 Rhyolite
2.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
54 105
92 m621
1 0-14
1
2 Rhyolite
2.0 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
54 105
92 m622
1 0-14
1
1 Rhyolite
1.5 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
54 105
92 m623
1 0-14
1
2 Rhyolite
2.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
54 105
92 m623
1 0-14
1
3 Quartz
2.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, I-2 cm
54 105
92 m623
1 0-14
1
2 Rhyolite
4.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
54 105
92 m623
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
7.6 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
54 105
92 m623
1 0-14
1
1 Quartz
8.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
54 105
92 m623
1 0-14
I
1 Rhyolite
17.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
54 105
92 m624
2 14-20
IA
I Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
54 105
92 m625
2 14-20
IA
1 Quartz
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 a626
1 0-20
1
1 Rhyolite
4.2 Projectile point, Big Sandy, proximal
fragment
56 105 103
a627
1 0-20
1
1 Rhyolite
10.3 Projectile point, unclassified type
56 105 103 a628 1
0-20
1 1
Rhyolite
12.0 Biface, Stage 3 indeterminate fragment
56 105 103 a629 1
0-20
1 1
Rhyolite
1.4 Scraper, thumbnail
56 105 103 m630 1
0-20
I 1
Quartz
15.0 Fire cracked rock
56 105 103 m630 1
0-20
1 1
Quartzite
78.4 Fire cracked rock
56 105 103 m631 1
0-20
1 1
Rhyolite
0.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m632 1
0-20
1 11
Rhyolite
I.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
56 105 103 m632 1
0-20
1 53
Rhyolite
19.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m632 1
0-20
I 3
Quartz
0.5 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m632 1
0-20
1 1
Chalcedon
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m632 1
0-20
1 13
y
Rhyolite
17.0 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
56 105 103 m632 1
0-20
I 1
Quartz
1.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
56 105 103 m632 1
0-20
1 1
Rhyolite
5.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 34 cm
56 105 103 m633 1
0-20
1 4
Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
56 105 103 m633 I
0-20
1 24
Rhyolite
8.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m633 1
0-20
1 1
Quartz
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m633 1
0-20
I 3
Rhyolite
3.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
56 105 103 m633 1
0-20
1 1
Rhyolite
2.5 Tertiary flake fragment, 34 cm
56 105 103 m634 1
0-20
1 2
Quartz
2.4 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m635 1
0-20
1 3
Rhyolite
2.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m635 1
0-20
1 7
Quartz
5.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m635 I
0-20
1 6
Rhyolite
8.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
56 105 103 m635 1
0-20
1 2
Quartz
4.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
56 105 103 m635 1
0-20
1 2
Rhyolite
8.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
56 105 103 m636 2
20-25
11 I
Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
56 105 103 m636 2
20-25
11 1
Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
59 106 65 a637 1
0-20
1 1
Rhyolite
5.4 Biface, Stage 3 disial fragment
59 106 65 m638 1
0-20
1 1
Rhyolite
10.4 Core, fragment
59 106 65 m639 1
59 106 65
0-20
1 12
Rhyolite
1.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
m639 1
59 106 65 m639 1
0-20
0-20
1 28
Rhyolite
9.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m640 1
0-20
I 8
1
Rhyolite
12.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
59 106 65 m640 1
0-20
2
1
Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
59 106 65 m640 1
0-20
5
1
Rhyolite
1.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m641 l
0-20
I
Rhyolite
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
59 106 65 m641 1
0-20
1 4
1
Rhyolite
1.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m641 1
0-20
1
1
Quartz
0.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m641 1
0-20
10
Rhyolite
18.9 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
59 106 65 m641 t
0-20
I 1
1
Quartz
1.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
3
Rhyolite
10.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
Comments
Impact and
comer/barb
fractures; basal
grinding
2 pieces mend, base
missing; impact,
Haft snap and recent
fractures
Transverse fracture
Hinge and
transverse fractures

31 AN 60 Data Recovery Artifact Catalog
Provenience
Spec.
Depth
Weight
TU N E # Level
(cm)
Stratum Total Material
(g) Artifact
59 106 65 m642
2 20-30
IA
4 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
59 106 65 m642
2 20-30
IA
6 Rhyolite
1.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m643
2 20-30
IA
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
59 106 65 m643
2 20-30
fA
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m644
2 20-30
IA
I Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
59 106 65 m644
2 20-30
IA
2 Rhyolite
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m644
2 20-30
IA
I Quartz
0.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m645
3 30-36
H.
2 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m646
3 30-36 ,;-
11
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m647
3 30-36
lI
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <1 cm
59 106 65 m648
4 3641
11
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <l cm
59 106 65 m648
4 3641
II
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
59 106 65 m649
4 3641
If
I Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <l cm
59 106 65 m649
4 3641
11
1 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
59 106 65 m650
5 4146
[i
1 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary flake fragment, I-2 cm
52 106 76 a651
1 0-18
I
l Rhyolite
1.8 Projectile point, Caraway
52 106 76 a652
1 0-18
I
1 Rhyolite
4.0 Biface, Stage 2 indeterminate fragment
52 106 76 m653
1 0-18
I
2 Quartz
26.5 Fire cracked rock
52 106 76 m654
1 0-I8
1
1 Rhyolite
2.2 Secondary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
52 106 76 m654
l 0-I8
I
1 Rhyolite
7.0 Secondary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
52 106 76 m655
1 0-18
1
8 Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <I cm
52 106 76 m655
1 0-18
I
38 Rhyolite
15.1 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m655
1 0-18
I
3 Quartz
0.7 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m655
1 0-18
1
3 Rhyolite
5.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m655
1 0-I8
1
1 Rhyolite
5.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 3-4 cm
52 106 76 m656 1
0-18
I
1 Quartz
3.5 Tertiary bipolar flake, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m657 1
0-18
1
13 Rhyolite
4.8 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m657 1
0-18
1
3 Quartz
0.9 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m657 1
0-18
1
3 Rhyolite
4.6 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m658 1
0-18
1
1 Quartz
0.3 Tertiary shatter, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m659 1
0-18
I
1 Quartz
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, <I cm
52 106 76 m659 1
0-18
1
1 Rhyolite
0.5 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m659 1
0-18
1
7 Quartz
8.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m659 I
0-18
I
3 Rhyolite
4.2 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m659 1
0-18
1
2 Rhyolite
8.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 34 cm
52 106 76 m659 1
0-18
1
1 Quartz
15.0 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 3-4 cm
52 106 76 m659 1
0-18
1
1 Rhyolite
5.8 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 4-5 cm
52 106 76 a660 2
I8-33
IA
1 Rhyolite
1.8 Retouched flake, indeterminate
52 106 76 m661 2
18-33
IA
I Rhyolite
0.1 Primary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m661 2
18-33
IA
1 Rhyolite
1.9 Primary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m662 2
18-33
IA
I Rhyolite
0.3 Secondary biface thinning flake, I-2 cm
52 106 76 m663 2
18-33
]A
5 Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
52 106 76 m663 2
18-33
IA
I Quartz
0.2 Tertiary biface thinning flake, <1 cm
52 106 76 m663 2
18-33
IA
13 Rhyolite
3.4 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m663 2
18-33
IA
4 Rhyolite
6.8 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m664 2
18-33
IA
1 Rhyolite
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <1 cm
52 106 76 m664 2
18-33
IA
5 "'Rhyolite
0.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m664 2
18-33
IA
2 Rhyolite
2.7 Tertiary flake fragment, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m665 2
18-33
IA
1 Quartz
0.2 Tertiary shatter, <I cm
52 106 76 m665 2
18-33
IA
I Quartz
1.3 Tertiary shatter, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m666 2
18-33
]A
I Rhyolite
0.4 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m667 3
33-38
IA
1 Rhyolite
0.6 Tertiary biface thinning flake, 2-3 cm
52 106 76 m668 3
33-38
IA
I Quartz
0.1 Tertiary flake fragment, <I cm
52 106 76 m669 3
33-38
]A
I Rhyolite
0.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
52 106 76 m669 3
33-38
IA
3 Quartz
1.3 Tertiary unspecialized flake, 1-2 cm
TOTAL
7960 TOTAL 14079.9
Comments
Recent fracture
Perverse fracture