9809_WilsonLF_cultresources_20210915

Appendix A.3
Archaeological Study and Correspondence
Site Study and Design Hydrogeologic Report
Westside CEO Landfill —Area 2
Wilson, North Carolina

Archaeological Survey of the
Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2017

Archaeological Survey of the
Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
ER 17-1519
Prepared for
Bartlett Engineering and Surveying
Wilson, North Carolina
Prepared by
TrolbK Southerlin
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2017

Management Summary
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson
County, North Carolina. The survey area is located just east of the town of Wilson and encompasses about
34 acres. The property is owned by Wilson County and the boundaries are comprised primarily of property
lines, with the exception of the eastern boundary which is bounded by the floodplain of Buck Branch, a
tributary of Toisnot Creek. The majority of the project tract is characterized by fallow agricultural fields.
However, the remains of a modern hog farm are present in the tract. This survey was undertaken on behalf
of Bartlett Engineering and Surveying. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological
resources located within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility
to the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP), and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh. Two previously recorded sites were identified with the prof ect tract, 31 WL02 and 31 WL 17 8/178 * *.
Site 31 WL02 was recorded in 1968 by a local artifact collector who had collected Native American lithic
and ceramic artifacts at the site. No NRHP eligibility recommendation was made on the archaeological site
form. Site 31WL178/178** was recorded in 1990. The data was based on a surface collection survey.
Native American components identified include Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Woodland. An
eighteenth century historic component was identified based on the recovery of historic glass and ceramics.
Although only a surface survey was conducted, 31WL178/178** was recommended not eligible for the
NRHP.
A total of 352 shovel tests were excavated during this investigation. Artifacts were collected from
128 of these. This survey established boundaries for the two previously recorded sites, which may have been
one continuous site before the area was disturbed by construction of the hog farm in 1990. Site
31 WL02/02** was found to have both historic and prehistoric components. Relatively deep deposits were
found at this site, and the earliest prehistoric component identified is from the Early Archaic Period.
Multiple ceramic period components were also identified, spanning the Woodland Period. The historic
component is very disturbed and mainly consists of debris associated with a nineteenth/twentieth century
dairy farm complex. Site 31WL178/178** also has historic and prehistoric components. Our investigation
identified Early, Middle, and Late Woodland occupations and the potential for intact evidence of earlier
occupations based on the presence of relatively deep deposits. Previous work at the site documented Middle
and Late Archaic components. The historic component includes evidence of a middle eighteenth century
occupation, and a light scatter of more modern material.
Because both sites appear to retain sufficient integrity to give them good research potential, their
NRHP eligibility recommendation are classified as "unassessed." Site 31 WL02/02* * may have the potential
to add new information about Archaic and Woodland settlement and life -ways in the region. Site
31WL178/178** may also have the potential to contribute significant data on Archaic and Woodland
settlement and life -ways, but also may contribute to our understanding of early historic settlement in the
project area during the eighteenth century. Additional evaluation (i.e., Phase II testing) of both sites will be
necessary in order to definitively determine their NRHP eligibility. Until the NRHP eligibility of both sites
is clarified, preservation is recommended.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

Table of Contents
Page
Management Summary................................................................ ii
Listof Figures........................................................................iv
Listof Tables........................................................................iv
Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods of Investigation ........................................ 1
The Project Tract.............................................................. 1
Methods of Investigation........................................................ 5
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview ........................................... 8
Environmental Overview........................................................ 8
Cultural Overview............................................................. 12
Chapter 3. Results of Background Research . ............................................. 26
Chapter 4. Results of the Archaeological Survey ........................................... 31
31WL02/02**................................................................ 31
31WL178/178**.............................................................. 47
Chapter 5. Summary and Recommendations .............................................. 56
Summary.................................................................... 56
Recommendations............................................................. 59
References Cited.................................................................... 60
Appendix A. Artifact Catalog and Projectile Point Report
Appendix B. Artifact Plates
Appendix C. Resume of Principal Investigator
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion project area... 1
Figure 1.2.
Aerial view of the project area . ............................................
2
Figure 1.3.
View of the northern portion of the survey area, facing southeast ...................
3
Figure 1.4.
View of the northern portion of the survey area, facing southwest ..................
3
Figure 1.5.
View of the remains of the hog farm, facing west ...............................
4
Figure 1.6.
View of the southern portion of the survey area, facing south .....................
4
Figure 1.7.
View of the southern end of the survey area, facing south .........................
5
Figure 2.1.
Map showing the project area and the physiographic provinces of North Carolina.. ...
8
Figure 2.2.
Map showing the location of the project area withing the Contentnea Creek subbasin..
9
Figure 2.3.
View of Buck Branch, facing northeast from the southern part of the survey area.....
10
Figure 2.4.
Map showing soils in the survey tract .......................................
11
Figure 2.5.
Map of North Carolina showing the Tuscarora territory in yellow .................
18
Figure 2.6.
Map showing the project vicinity in the early eighteenth century . ................
21
Figure 2.7.
Portion of the 1770 Collett map showing the project vicinity .....................
23
Figure 2.8.
Map showing the project area at the end of the Civil War .......................
25
Figure 3.1.
Map showing the locations of previously recorded archaeological sites in the project
vicinity...............................................................
27
Figure 3.2.
Wilson County soil map from 1925 showing the project area .....................
28
Figure 3.3.
Aerial photograph from 1957 showing structures in the project vicinity linked to a
dairyfarm.............................................................
29
Figure 3.4.
Aerial photograph from 1993 showing the newly constructed hog farm .............
30
Figure 4.1.
Map showing the locations of 31WL2/2** and 31WL178/178**.................
32
Figure 4.2.
Aerial photograph showing site details ......................................
33
Figure 4.3.
LiDAR map showing site details ...........................................
34
Figure 4.4.
View of hog farm silos and hog house rubble, facing west .......................
35
Figure 4.5.
View of hog house foundation, facing west ..................................
35
Figure 4.6.
View of concrete structure next to waste lagoon, facing southeast .................
36
Figure 4.7.
View of waste lagoon, facing east ..........................................
36
Figure 4.8.
Shovel test at Provenience 3 (N185 E425), 31WL02/02**.......................
38
Figure 4.9.
Shovel test at Provenience 16 (N230 E425), 31WL02/02**......................
38
Figure 4.10.
Shovel test at Provenience 25 (N260 E455), 31WL02/02**......................
39
Figure 4.11.
Shovel test at Provenience 97 (N500 E500), 31WL02/02**......................
39
Figure 4.12.
Plan map showing the distribution of historic artifacts at 31WL02/02**............
40
Figure 4.13.
Map showing prehistoric artifact distribution at 31WL02/02**...................
42
Figure 4.14.
Map showing prehistoric ceramic artifact distribution at 31WL02/02**............
45
Figure 4.15.
Map showing prehistoric lithic artifact distribution at 31LW02/02**..............
46
Figure 4.16.
Soil profile at Provenience 26 (N590 E440), 31WL178/178**...................
48
Figure 4.17.
Soil profile at Provenience 10 (N560 E440), 31WL178/178**...................
48
Figure 4.18.
Map showing historic artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**...................
50
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
iv

List of Figures (continued)
Page
Figure 4.19. Map showing Native American artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**............ 51
Figure 4.20. Map showing Native American ceramic artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**..... 52
Figure 4.21. Map showing Native American lithic artifact distribution by material type at
31WL178/178**....................................................... 53
Figure 5.1. Map showing the distribution of Cashie pottery fragments in the project area........ 58
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1.
Summary of Soils in the Wilson Solid Waste Expansion Tracts . .................
10
Table 2.2.
Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Northern North Carolina Coastal
Plain.................................................................
13
Table 2.3.
Summary of Faunal Species from 31BR7, the Jordan's Landing Site ..............
19
Table 3.1.
Summary of Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity ........................
26
Table 4.1.
Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31WL02/02**................
41
Table 4.2.
Summary of Prehistoric Ceramics Collected from Site 31WL02/02** Revisit.......
43
Table 4.3.
Summary of Prehistoric Lithics Collected from Site 31WL02/02** Revisit.........
43
Table 4.4.
Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit........
49
Table 4.5.
Summary of Prehistoric Ceramics Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.....
54
Table 4.6.
Summary of Prehistoric Lithics Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.......
54
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
v

Chapter 1. Introduction and Investigation Methods
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson
County, North Carolina. This survey was undertaken for Bartlett Engineering and Surveying on behalf of
the Wilson County government. In a letter from the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources dated 11 September 2017 (ER 17-1519), the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) noted the
presence of two previously recorded archaeological sites within the survey area. Because of the
archaeological sensitivity ofthe area, the SHPO recommended that an archaeological survey ofthe expansion
area be conducted and the previously recorded sites located and evaluated for National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) eligibility. This investigation was conducted pursuant to Section 106 ofthe National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified as 36CFR Part 800. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological
resources located within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility
to the NRHP, and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
The Project Tract
The survey
area is located in the
central portion of
Wilson County, about
3 kilometers east of the
town of Wilson (Figure
1.1). The project tract
is located south of
State Route (SR) 42,
on property owned by
Wilson County. An
existing and active
land fill is present on
the property. The
setting is on high
ground bordering Buck
Branch, about 500
meters north of its
confluence with
Toisnot Creek. The
project area
NASH Elm City ti
COUNTY
T-- _; ,EDGECOMBE
COUNTY
Sims
Wilson ^ Proa w��nYj
' WILSON
` COUNTY Lp-._�,.
Saratoga
JOtsNSTON Lucama
Black
Creek �.
Stantonshurg
Kenly
VYtlsan co. solid Waste
GREENE
- County Eaundary
C Municipal Boundary WAYN E COUN. T1Y�
K COUN-v
/k ❑ 1.5 3 6.5 6
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the Wilson County Solid Waste
encompasses Expansion project area.
approximately 34
acres, the majority of which is fallow agricultural fields (Figure 1.2). The remains of a hog farm, including
structural remains and waste lagoons, are located in the tract. Figures 1.3 through 1.7 present views of the
project tract.
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 1.2. Aerial view of the project area.
-AEC, Inc. Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
2

Figure 1.3. View of the northern portion of the survey area, facing southeast.
Figure 1.4. View of the northern portion of the survey area, facing southwest.
.-AGC, Inc Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 3

Figure 1.5. View of the remains of the hog farm, facing west.
Figure 1.6. View of the southern portion of the survey tract, facing south.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 4

Figure 1.7. View of the southern end of the survey area, facing south.
Methods of Investigation
This investigation consisted of four primary tasks: Background Research, Field Investigations,
Laboratory Analyses, and Project Documentation. Background Research was conducted to identify any
archaeological resources in the project area, to establish the cultural history of the project vicinity, and to
understand changes in the natural and cultural landscape. Field Investigations were conducted to collect a
representative artifact sample, define the horizontal and vertical boundaries of identified sites, and to evaluate
the contexts from which the artifacts were collected. Laboratory Analysis entailed the cleaning and
identification of artifacts collected during the survey. Project Documentation consisted of compiling project
data in a bound report for review by the SHPO. Each of these tasks is discussed in detail below.
Background Research
Background Research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file
at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina. This review served to identify
previously recorded resources in the proj ect vicinity and provided data on the prehistoric and historic context
of the project tract. Historic maps of Wilson County and the project vicinity were also examined. These
included:
• 1709 John Lawson map
• 1770 Collett map
• 1861 Bache map of North Carolina
• 1879 Map of Wilson County (E.P. Tucker)
• 1925 Wilson County soil map
• 1957 USDA aerial photograph
• 1993 aerial photograph
• 1910s Map of Wilson County, North Carolina showing rural delivery routes
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
5

1938 Wilson County Highway map
1978 USGS Saratoga, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
The current Wilson County Soil Survey and United States Agricultural Department (USDA) online database
was consulted to determine soil types within the project tract and environmental characteristics of the
surrounding area. Finally, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery was used to examine details of
the tract.
Field Investigation
As surface visibility was poor in the survey area, systematic shovel testing was the primary artifact
collection method. Prior to field investigations a 30-meter grid was overlain on project tract maps using
ArcGIS software. This map was then downloaded onto a handheld Trimble Pathfinder Global Positioning
System (GPS) unit. Using the GPS unit, each 30-meter grid point was marked on the ground with an orange
pin flag; the transect number and shovel test number was recorded on each pin flag. Shovel tests were dug
at all grid points except in the waste lagoons and in the area of the former hog houses. Following the 30-
meter interval coverage, shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals around the initial shovel tests that
had yielded artifacts.
Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter. Shovel tests were
excavated in natural levels, allowing us to distinguish artifacts from plowzone and sub-plowzone contexts.
Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25 inch wire mesh. Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test
by level were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts were collected and placed in plastic bags labeled with
the date, field site number, grid point locations (i.e., shovel test/transect or north/east coordinate), depth of
artifacts, and initials of the excavator. Site boundaries were determined when two consecutive negative
shovel tests were encountered.
Site settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field
showing the locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The location of each site was recorded using a
Trimble GPS unit, and the locations were then relayed onto project maps.
Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways, and
its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria which must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association" and if it A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
pattern of history; B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; C) embodies distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents work of a master, possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or D) has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Archaeological sites are most frequently evaluated pursuant to Criterion D. However, some historic period
archaeological sites can be considered under all four criteria.
The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Although the formal determination of the site significance is
made by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data is gathered to allow us to make a significance
recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for
the NRHP and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 6

the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is advocated. It
is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively determine that a site
meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended eligible for the NRHP.
Again, preservation ofthe resource is advocated. Ifpreservation is not possible, mitigation options (e.g., data
recovery) would need to be considered.
Laboratory Analysis
Laboratory work began with washing all recovered artifacts. A provenience number, based on the
context of the artifact (i.e., surface or subsurface), was assigned to each positive shovel test location or
surface collection area. Within each provenience, each individual artifact or artifact class was then assigned
a number. Artifacts were cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the
case of lithics, and decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics. Native American artifacts
were identified using Coe (1964), Herbert (2009), and Phelps and Heath (1998). Historic artifacts were
identified by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g., slipware), form (e.g., bowl, plate),
method of manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-1820), and intended function (e.g.,
tableware). Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges were categorized using Aultman et
al. (2015), Florida Museum of Natural History (2009), Lindsey 2017), Marcel (1994), Liller et al. (2000),
Samford (2014), South (1977, 2004), and Wilson and Snodgrass (2008). Consultations were also held with
Mr. Thomas Beaman, Jr., Associate Professor in Anthropology and Archaeology at Wake Technical
Community College due to his intimate knowledge of Wilson County's archaeological resources and his
direct experience with the two previously recorded archaeological sites in the project tract. Artifact
descriptions, counts, and weights were recorded. All diagnostic and cross -mended artifacts were labeled with
a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -free permanent ink. The artifact inventory catalog and representative
artifact photographs are presented in appendices.
At the conclusion of this project, all project related material, including field notes, artifacts, and
project maps, will be prepared for curation based on standards set forth in 36 CFR 79 (Curation offederally
Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections: Final Rule) and in the OSA curation guidelines.
These standards and guidelines require that all proj ect-related material be placed in archivally stable storage
bags and boxes. Upon acceptance of the final project report by the SHPO, the project material will be
submitted to OSA for permanent curation or returned to the property owners (if requested).
Project Documentation
Project documentation involved the compilation of all data gathered during the previous tasks. The
following chapter provides environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. Next, the results of
the field investigation are discussed. Each identified resource is described, shown on project maps, and
NRHP eligibility recommendations are advanced. The data obtained through laboratory analysis are included
in site descriptions. Finally, a summary of the overall project is presented along with management
recommendations, as appropriate.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
7

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
To interpret cultural resources, it is necessary to understand the larger context within which they
occur. The natural environment, technological development, and ideological values are all intertwined in
shaping the way humans live. In this chapter, details about the local environment and cultural development
in the region are presented to provide a context within which cultural resources can be assessed. This basic
framework is an important tool in evaluating the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of
these resources.
Environmental Overview
Wilson County is
mostly located in the
Coastal Plain
physiographic province of
North Carolina (Figure
2.1), but the northwestern
part of the county is in the
Piedmont (Sink 1983); the
project area is in the
Coastal Plain. The Coastal
Plain is gently sloping to
the southeast. Elevations
vary between 305 feet
above mean sea level
(amsl) in the northern part
of the county near the Nash
County boundary and 60
feet amsl near where
Contentnea Creek crosses
the Wilson/Edgecomb
county line (Sink 1983).
Elevations in the project
tract range from 90 to 110
feet amsl.
Drainage
Figure 2.1. Map showing the project area and the physiographic
provinces of North Carolina.
The Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion project area is located within the Contentnea Creek
subbasin of the greater Neuse River Basin (Figure 2.2). Contentnea Creek and it's tributary Toisnot Creek
(sometimes referred to as Toisnot Swamp) drain about 84 percent of Wilson County (Sink 1983). The survey
area is located just west of Buck Branch, a small tributary of Toisnot Creek. Buck Branch is just over 2 3.2
kilometers (2 miles) long, from its headwaters to it's confluence with Toisnot Creek. Figure 2.3 shows a
swampy portion of Buck Branch just east of the southern part of the project area. The confluence of Buck
Branch and Toisnot Creek is approximately 600 meters (1,968 feet) south ofthe project area. The confluence
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 2.2. Map showing the location of the project area within the Contentnea Creek subbasin.
of Toisnot Creek and Contentnea Creek is approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) southeast of the project
area. Contentnea Creek is a significant tributary of the Neuse River. The Neuse River flows southeast, past
New Bern, and drains into Pamlico Sound.
Climate
Like most of central and eastern North Carolina, the climate of Wilson County is temperate,
characterized by mild winters and warm summers. January tends to be the coldest month, with daily average
temperatures ranging between 31.2 and 52.8 degrees Fahrenheit (Sink 1983). July tends to be the hottest
month, with daily average temperatures ranging between 68.2 and 89.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Normal annual
precipitation is about 47.25 inches, with the summer being the wettest season. October is the driest month,
averaging 2.64 inches of rainfall, and July is the wettest month, averaging 6.06 inches of rainfall. The county
averages just over 4 inches of snowfall per year.
Soils
The Coastal Plain soils of Wilson County are underlain by unconsolidated sandy and clayey
sediments (Sink 1983). Six soil types are present in the project tract (Figure 2.4; Table 2.1). More than half
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 9

Figure 2.3. View of Buck Branch, facing northeast from the southern part of the
survey area.
Table 2.1. Summary of Soils in the Wilson Solid Waste Exnansion Tracts (USDA 2017).
Soil Type
Description
Acres
Altavista fine sandy loam (AaA)
moderately well -drained, 0 - 3% slope, rarely flooded
1.8
Goldsboro sandy loam (GoA)
moderately well -drained, 0 - 2% slope
0.2
Gritney sandy loam (GtB2)
Moderately well drained, 2 - 5% slope, moderately eroded
5.5
Tarboro sand (TaB)
Somewhat excessively drained, 0 - 5% slope, rarely flooded
2.5
Tomotley fine sandy loam (Tt)
Poorly drained, 0 - 2 % slope, rarely flooded
3.8
Wagram loamy sand (WaB)
well drained, 0 - 6% slope, forms on ridges and broad interstream
divides on marine terraces
20.0
Total
33.8
(59.2% / 20 acres) of the project tract is classified as Wagram loamy sand. Wagram soils are located in the
northern and central part of the survey area. This soil type is well drained and is viewed as having high
potential for archaeological remains. Gritney sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil encompassing
16.3 (5.5 acres) percent of the survey area. It is found in the central part of the survey area. This is a
moderately eroded soil. Tomotley fine sandy loam is a poorly drained soil located in the southwestern part
of the survey area. It encompasses 11 percent (3.8 acres) of the survey area. Tarboro sand is somewhat
�•' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
[D]

.a
X
Wilson Co. Solid Waste Sites
Project Boundary = Gritney Sandy Loam (GtB2)
Altavista Fine Sandy Loam (AaA) Tarboro Sand (TaB)
Bibb Loam (Bb) �_'. Tomotley Fine Sandy Loam (Tt)I
Goldsboro Sandy Loam (GoA) - Wagram Loamy Sand (WaB)
0 40 80 120 160
ll' 3 •:
s Meters
Figure 2.4. Map showing soils in the survey tract (USGS 1978 Saratoga, NC 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle).
:-PGC, Inc.- Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina

excessively drained soil located in the southeastern corner of the survey area. This soil forms in low-lying
settings that rarely flooded. Tarboro sand 2.5 acres, or 7.2 percent of the survey area. Altavista fine sandy
loam encompasses 1.8 acres, or 5.2 percent of the extreme southern part of the proj ect area. Goldsboro sandy
loam is located in the extreme northern part of the survey area, and accounts for 0.2 acres, or about 0.7
percent of the survey area. The well drained, moderately well drained, and somewhat excessively drained
soils are considered to have high potential for the presence of archaeological remains.
Paleoenvironment
Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000
years (the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) include a general warming trend, melting
of the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin glaciation, and an associated rise in sea level. About 12,000 years
ago the ocean was located 80 to 161 kilometers (50 to 100 miles) east of its present position, and the project
area was probably a rather unremarkable interriverine Coastal Plain flatwoods. During the last 5,000 years
there has apparently been a 400 to 500 year cycle of sea level fluctuations of about 2.0 meters (6.6 ft; Brooks
et al. 1989; Colquhoun et al. 1981).
The general warming trend that led to the melting of glacial ice and the rise in sea level greatly
affected vegetation communities in the Southeast. During the late Wisconsin glacial period, until about
12,000 years ago, boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce covered most of the Southeast. Approximately
10,000 years ago, a modern, somewhat xeric, forest developed and covered much of the Southeastern United
States (Kuchler 1964; Wharton 1989). As the climate continued to warm, increased moisture augmented the
northward advance of the oak -hickory forest (Delcourt 1979). In a study by Sheehan et al. (1985),
palynological evidence suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly decreased in importance between
9,000 and 4,000 years before present (BP). By the mid -Holocene, the oak -hickory forest was gradually being
replaced by a pine dominated woodland (Wharton 1989:12).
From 4,000 years BP to the present, the upland vegetation of the Southeast was characterized by a
thinning of the deciduous forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1987). Hickory and gums were generally less
important, with alder and ragweed increasing in representation in the palynological record (Delcourt 1979;
Sheehan et al. 1985). This forest thinning suggests an increase in human related landscape modifications
(i.e., timbering, farming). Similarly, the importance and overall increase in pine species in the forest during
this time would have depended on several factors, including fire, land clearing, and soil erosion (Plummer
1975; Sheldon 1983). Since that time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward slightly
cooler and moister conditions, leading to the development of the present Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest
as defined by Quarterman and Keever (1962).
Faunal communities have also changed dramatically over time. A number of large mammal species
(e.g., mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct towards the end of the glacial period
12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Human groups, which for subsistence had focused on hunting these large
mammals, readapted their strategy to exploitation of smaller mammals, primarily deer in the Southeast.
Cultural Overview
Pre -Contact Period
The following discussion summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in the
northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina, emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 12

throughout the time prior to the arrival of Europeans. Table 2.2 provides a summary of the chronological
sequence of Native American occupation of the northern Coastal Plain.
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Northern North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Temporal
Phase
Diagnostic Artifacts
Settlement
Subsistence
Period
Paleiondian
Clovis
large, triangular, fluted or side -notched
small, seasonal camps
intensive foraging,
10,000-8,000 BC
projectile points
focus on large fauna
Dalton
Archaic
Taylor
side -notched projectile points
larger, seasonal camps;
intensive foraging
8,000-1,000 BC
Kirk/Palmer
corner --notched projectile points
base camps
Lecroy
bifurcated points
stemmed points
Morrow Mtn.
Guilford
Savannah
large Savannah River Points
first shell middens in
use of marine
River
Stallings Island fiber tempered and Thom's
the Carolinas
resources
Creek sand tempered ceramics in southern
part of NC coast
Woodland
Deep Creek
large triangular points (Roanoke Triangular)
small, dispersed
intensive foraging
1,000 BC- 1713
sand tempered pottery
villages; focus on flood
supplemented by
cord marked surface treatments
plain areas
horticulture;
agriculture;
continued focus on
Mt. Pleasant /
sand tempered ceramics with fabric and cord
flexed burials and
shellfish
Cape Fear
marked surface decorations; small triangular
cremations
projectile points
Cashie /
pebble tempered pottery (Tuscarora Indians)
large, permanent
European trade
Collington
villages; deer skin trade
intensive agriculture,
shell tempered pottery (Pamlico Indians ?)
focus remains on
corn; supplemented
Tuscarora War
bv Euro can ains
Brady and Lautzenheiser (1999); Haag (1958); Phelps (1983), Ward and Davis (1999)
The fossil record shows that many now -extinct animals once roamed the North America continent
for millions of years, but human remains appear to be more recent, indicating that humans are relatively new
arrivals in North America. Abundant evidence has been found confirming that migrant bands of humans
living a hunter -gatherer lifestyle were scattered across North America by 12,000 years ago. This time period
corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent during the
last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). However, research conducted over the past few decades has
begun to cast doubt on this theory. Evidence is being recognized that humans were spread across North and
South America possibly as early as 20,000 years ago, although much is still not understood about exactly
when, where, and who were the first people to visit and settle in North America.
Investigations at ancient archaeological sites have produced radiocarbon dates predating the
Holocene epoch, which began approximately 12,000 years ago. Current research conducted at the Topper
Site indicates occupations dating between 15,000 to 19,000 (or more) years ago (Goodyear 2006). Two sites,
44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar dates. One contentious point about these early
sites is that the occupations predate what has been recognized as the earliest New World culture, Clovis.
Artifacts identified at pre -Clovis sites include flake tools and blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 13

lanceolate -like points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2006; Johnson 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997;
and McDonald 2000).
The identification of pre -Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the
United States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last
glaciation), and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type have led some researchers to hypothesize
about other avenues of migration (Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories contend that
the influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice -free corridor 12,000 years ago and that multiple
migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the one presumed to
have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific
rim (Stanford et al. 2006). Coastal migration theories envision sea faring people using boats to make the
journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).
A number of archaeological sites in the project region date to the late Pleistocene. During this
period, the climate of North Carolina was cooler and wetter than today, with temperatures from 5 to 11
degrees Fahrenheit (F ) lower on the average, and more abundant rain, though spread more evenly through
the year. Sea level was over 100 feet lower than today and the Atlantic coast line would have been much
farther east than its current position. Vegetation would have consisted of spruce -pine parklands and near
tundra conditions in the mountains and foothills, while oak -beech -hickory -hemlock forests would have been
present in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.
Archaeological sites from the late Pleistocene (10, 000-8, 000 BC) in eastern North Carolina are
known only from surface contexts. Archaeologists refer to this time span as the Paleoindian Period. While
intact sites should exist in the region along major streams, little effort has be made to identify these early
sites (Byrd 1997; Phelps 1983). The major artifact marker for this time frame is the Clovis lanceolate fluted
point (Gardner 1974, 1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been
recovered throughout the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in
the eastern United States (Ward and Davis 1999). The majority of Clovis points have been recovered from
surface contexts, although some sites (e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined
subsurface Clovis contexts. A total of nine fluted points has been documented in the project vicinity (Pitt
County and the seven adjacent counties). Three fluted points have been documented in Pitt County (Daniel
2005), all from surface contexts and private collections.
In North Carolina, most of the tools from 10,000-12,000 years ago occur as isolated surface finds
(Ward and Davis 1999), indicating to many scholars that population density was extremely low during this
period and that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group
movements were probably well -scheduled and that some semblance of territories was probably maintained
to ensure adequate arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and
Hanson 1988). Small base camps were likely established for the seasonally -mobile family groups who
hunted deer, elk, bear, and possibly caribou. Smaller special activity and resource procurement sites away
from the main camp are also likely.
O'Steen (1996) analyzed early human settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility with time. Early sites seem to be restricted to the flood
plains, while later sites were distributed widely in the uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of
environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing
environments trending toward increased deciduous forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 14

megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth
may have also been a factor.
Between about 81 000 -1, 000 BC new tool forms and subsistence strategies emerge in the Southeast.
Archaeologists refer to this time span as the Archaic Period. The Native American chronological sequence
defined by Coe (1964) for this span of time is primarily based on work in the Piedmont, but generally seems
to be applicable to the Coastal Plain. However, for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, much data are still
needed to refine the chronology and gain a better understanding of Native American lifeways. Most of what
is known ofthis time period comes from surface collections (Ward and Davis 1999), but recent investigations
have identified stratified deposits dating to this period in the northern coastal plain of North Carolina
(Barbour 2015).
The climate gradually warmed during this time period, becoming somewhat similar to today's
environment. There is evidence of a particularly warmer and drier period ca. 6,500 years ago. The
vegetation was similar to that today, with deciduous forests and developing pine forests, especially in the
coastal plain. Swamp communities developed as sea levels rose.
People lived and conducted activities at a variety of site types. These site types range from small
hunting camps to large base camps or small villages. Camp sites are assumed to have been occupied
seasonally to take advantage of the locally available plants and animals. Group sizes may have ranged from
single families to several families (bands) (Ward and Davis).
From 8, 000 to 6, 000 BC (Early Archaic) the climate is marked by a shift from a boreal forest to more
northern hardwoods. Southern pines became the dominant species as the Oak -Hickory forest retreated to the
Piedmont (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Delcourt and Delcourt 1985). Site types are generally of two kinds:
base camps at stream confluences and small temporary resource procurement sites located in areas with
seasonally variable resources (Phelps 1981, 1983; Ward and Davis 1999). The smaller temporary
procurement camps and the larger base camps are found at a ratio of ten to one (Ward and Davis 1999).
Palmer and Kirk corner -notched spear points are diagnostic of this time period.
Work at Squires Ridge (31ED365) identified stratified deposits dating to approximately 8,000 years
ago at a depth of about 80 centimeters below the ground surface (+/-10 cm). Artifacts produced from a wide
variety of stone types, including quartzite, quartz, orthoquartzite, metavolcanic, and syenite, were recovered,
suggesting opportunistic collection of raw material rather than specific preferences (Barbour 2015).
Diagnostic artifacts recovered for this time frame include Kirk Stemmed spear points.
From about 6, 000 to 3, OOOBC (Middle Archaic), settlement and subsistence strategies appear to have
remained constant, although there is a noted increase in the number of sites recorded from earlier times
(Ward and Davis 1999). A new suite of diagnostic stone tools appears, characterized by Stanly Stemmed,
Morrow Mountain Stemmed, and Guilford Lanceolate spear points. In the current project region, Morrow
Mountain and Guilford phases are believed to have been introduced from the west (Coe 1964). Phelps
(1964) referred to this as the "Western Intrusive Horizon." Halifax style projectile points have also been
found in the northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina. This point style dates to approximately 4,000 BC and
was introduced from peoples living to the north (Coe 1964). People of this time period continued a hunting
and gathering lifestyle, but cultivation and rudimentary gardening of plants was being practiced by about
2,000 BC.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 15

The period between 3, 000 to 1, 000 BC (Late Archaic) marks a shift of settlements from upland
tributary streams to the mouths of major rivers. This shift allowed for the inclusion of marine and estuarine
resources in the people's diet. The predominant characteristic tool type of the this time is the Savannah River
spear point. These large points are stemmed with triangular blades and may have been used as knives as well
as spear points.
About 2,500 BC, fired clay pottery began being produced. The earliest well dated ceramic types in
the Southeast are fiber tempered Stallings wares and sand tempered Thoms Creek wares. Also most common
on archaeological sites in the coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, Stallings and Thoms Creek
wares have been recovered from sites in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Stallings sherds have been
found as far north as the Tar River drainage. Sand tempered Thoms Creek wares tend to be limited to
Brunswick and New Hanover counties (Ward and Davis 1999). These ceramics are often found in
association with Savannah River phase contexts.
By about 1,000 BC the climate was much as it is today, with some minor fluctuations. Vegetation
was also similar to today, although virgin forests were present and better soil conditions existed before
disturbance by European -style farming practices. Agricultural practices were developed, with corn, beans,
squash, and sunflowers being early domesticates (Ward and Davis 1999). Seasonal movements to collect
available plants or hunt animals were still practiced. Archaeologists refer to the period between 1,000 BC
and 1715 as the Woodland Period.
It is believed that the bow and arrow was introduced in the Southeast during this time. Small
triangular arrowheads are common, along with many varieties of pottery. There is very little subsistence data
available for this time frame on the northern Coastal Plain, but what is known points to a continuation of
hunting, gathering, and fishing practices. The importance of horticulture in the diet during this period is still
debated (Phelps 1983; Ward and Davis 1999), but it was likely no more than a supplement to the other
strategies already in place.
Settlements included large and small camps, as well as are large and permanently occupied villages
with substantial houses of wood or wattle and daub with thatched roofs. Sand burial mounds appear, but are
not common. The majority of ceramics found during this time period are referenced as Deep Creek, and this
time period has been designated as the Deep Creek Phase. Deep Creek ceramics are sand tempered and cord -
marked, with net impressed, simple stamped, and plain as minority surface treatments. The coarse quartz
sand temper is present in high proportions. The Lenoir ceramics identified by Crawford (1966) and the New
River ceramics identified by Loftfield (1976) in other parts of the Coastal Plain seem to be identical to Deep
Creek wares (Herbert 2011).
Steatite tempered Marcey Creek ceramics are also found in small amounts in the region. Marcey
Creek ceramics originate in the Mid -Atlantic region to the north. Large triangular points similar to what Coe
(1964) and South (1959) called Roanoke triangular points have been found associated with Deep Creek
ceramics (Phelps 1983). These factors may suggest that northern groups of people are beginning to have
some influence in the project region. Work at the Squires Ridge site (31ED365) identified characteristic
Deep Creek pottery fragments at about 20 to 40 centimeters below the ground surface. Associated artifacts
included one Yadkin and one Roanoke triangular projectile points (Barbour 2015).
The Mount Pleasant Phase has been defined as dating from around 300 to 800 AD in the northern
Coastal Plain. During this time span, numerous sand burial mounds were built in the southern inner Coastal
Plain (Ward and Davis 1999).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 16

The distinctive type of pottery for this phase (also called Mount Pleasant) is tempered with fine and
medium sized sand, with occasional granule or pebble size inclusions (Phelps 1983). Surface decorations
include fabric impressed, net impressed, cord marked, and smoothed sherds. The bow and arrow continued
to be used, as reflected by the occurrence of small triangular points. Settlements became more permanent,
although some time was spent during the year at the coast to collect shell fish. Domestic plants were also
a more important part of the diet (Ward and Davis 1999). Maize -based agriculture was present by 800 AD
in the Southeast, and is believed to be correlated to with a significant increase in population, as well as
increased cultural complexity (Smith 1986).
Contact Period
The period between 800 AD until the first contact with Europeans was marked by continuity, and
the changes that occurred were typically gradual in nature. There were few differences between the pre -
pottery lifestyles and the lifestyles of the people of the period of time immediately following the introduction
of ceramic technology. Changes in technology, subsistence, and political organization seem to reflect few
outside influences. Overall, it was a period of stability (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Iroquois -speaking Tuscarora, Meherrin, and Nottoway tribes did not extend eastward to the
coastal zone. Algonkian speaking people, called the Carolina Algonkians, resided in the northern Outer
Coastal Plain of North Carolina, east of the Tuscorora's territory (Mintz et al. 2011; Ward and Davis 1999).
Physical, cultural, and linguistic differences emerged that can be traced to documented tribes who occupied
the coast at the time of European contact (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Tuscarora of North Carolina are an Iroquoian group that migrated to the area centuries before
the arrival of Europeans. Phelps (1983) identified the Cashie phase as being associated with the ancestors
of modern Tuscarora people. Although Phelps (1983) has AD 800 as a starting date for this period, Heath
and Swindle (2011) have reexamined some of Phelps data and they suggest the beginning date is around AD
1200.
Archaeological sites where the ancestors of the Tuscarora lived are most easily identified by their
distinctive pottery, referred to as Cashie wares. Three Cashie phases have been identified: Cashie I (1200-
1650), Cashie II (1650-1717), and Cashie ITI (1717-1803). Tuscarora archaeological sites are most readily
identified by their distinctive pottery and there is growing evidence that the appearance of this ceramic type
marks the initial colonization of North Carolina's interior coastal plain by the ancestors of the Tuscarora.
Cashie pottery is perhaps best know for the type of temper mixed with the clay. Pebble -size pieces of quartz
visible in pottery fragments are characteristic of Cashie pottery (Phelps 1983). However, while the pebble -
tempered pottery is most common, temperless and sand tempered pottery is also present in the
Tuscarora/Cashie ceramic assemblages (Heath and Swindell 2011; Phelps 1983). There are three main
treatments used on the surface of Cashie vessels: fabric impression, simple stamping, and plain. Early in the
phase, fabric impressed vessels were most common. Over time, simple stamped surfaces become more
common, and toward the end of the phase, plain surfaces dominate (Heath and Swindell 2011). Incised
designs are also present but in low numbers. The incising is typically applied near the rim and/or overlapping
fabric impressions or simple stamping on the vessel surfaces (Heath and Swindell 2011).
Mortuary practices in the northern Coastal Plain underwent a rapid transformation at the beginning
of the Cashie phase. Earlier peoples burial practice included primary burial and cremations. With the Cashie
phase, carefully processed skeletal remains are located in small ossuaries inside dwellings or adjacent to
primary habitation areas (Heath and Swindle 2011). Funerary objects often include shell beads, but many
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 17

burials have no funerary objects. Bone pins, antler or bone awls, and bone needles have also been found in
burials.
Cashie I is the period of time identified with the migration and settlement of Tuscarora people prior
to sustained contact with Europeans. Initial settlement is believed to have occurred along the Roanoke and
Tar -Pamlico river basins. Settlement of the middle Neuse River basin does not appear to have occurred until
around 1450. According to settler accounts, the Tuscarora occupied the "country lying between the sea
shores and the mountains, which divided the Atlantic states" (Rights 1957). Figure 2.5 shows the region
believed to be the Carolina Tuscarora's homeland.
North Coastal Plain
P
S1LF
Iar�� mgham Caswell I I R� i Lake Northampton{ �G�tes ; aZ C t
P rson i c aergq o� - A `y P-6 6
'Reidsville He derso Cr[¢.4tpn �a Hertford
� - 1 nvilleI - Halifax Q r - - - - - -1 Per-`
Cqu' ns
Franklin I I r P
reensbo6 t Falls,V
• I Bertie �4
Guilford O E' 4� Nash i -
�- _ DuG .� River ,
• + f Edgec be I
�_ Cha�ljll {{'' Wake 'r J� �Jd Tyrrel
rk I r� !s Evei* Jot• - Wilson Martin Laket I Dare
1e Randolp I Chatham !Lake F9 �� i.z.
r 4 ville
?
Pitt � ` Beaufor � � kc t
.Sant � i Joh on r + E � I � „
t �9 Wayne +Green 1 k'et ti
�g Moore �' _ 'Neuse'
Lenoir .Craven
- i -
Cwn6 !land Pamlico
hmond Hoke , Fay ttevill T Jones °r-fir
Figure 2.5. Map of North Carolina showing the Tuscarora territory in yellow.
Subsistence and settlement patterns remained unchanged during the early years of European
settlement in North Carolina. Hunting, gathering, shell fishing, and agriculture each played a part of the
Native American subsistence strategy, and Cashie ceramics were still produced. Excavations at Neoheroka
Fort (31GR4) provide subsistence data from 1713. Flotation samples from house features yielded large
quantities of corn, peaches, and beans. The acidic soil left bone fragments in poor condition, but deer and
racoon bones were identified (Byrd 1997).
The Tuscarora primarily used quartz and quartzite to construct stone tools. They made small
triangular arrow points of a style common across the Southeastern Woodlands. Most of the stone used for
tools was collected from cobble deposits, but trade of non -local materials may have occurred. Maize, beans,
squash, sunflower goosefoot, amaranth, and sumpweed are typical foods of this time. Carbonized remains
of wild foods such as hickory, acorns, walnuts, persimmon, and wild grapes have been identified in Cashie
features (Byrd 1997). Based on his work at the Tuscarora Jordan's Landing site (31BR7), Byrd (1997) has
presented a summary of animal species that were exploited (Table 2.3).
There were several Tuscarora towns located along Contentnea Creek, which flows from the north
and west into the Neuse River. Catechna is one of the most historically significant of these towns and was
the organizing point for the uprising, led by Chief Hancock, that triggered the Tuscarora War. It was also
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y. 18

Table 2.3. Summary of Faunal Species from 31BR7, the Jordan's Landing Site (Byrd 1997).
Mammals
Reptiles
Birds
Fish
Amphibians
Shellfish
Odocoileus virginianus
Chelydra serpentina
Meleagris gallopavo
Amia calva
Rana catesbeiana
Elliptio complanata
white tailed deer
snapping turtle
wild turkey
bowfin
American bullfrog
eastern elliptio
Ursus americanus
Terrapene carolina
UID Anserinae
Lepisosteus sp.
Ligumia nasuta
black bear
box turtle
goose/duck
Gar
eastern pondmussel
c.f. Canus lupus
Pseudemys sp.
Colinus virgianus
Amieurus catus
possible wolf
tooter turtle
northern bobwhite
white catfish
Lynx rufus
Agkistrodon
Amieurus natalis
bobcat
piscivorus
yellow bullhead catfish
Cottonmouth moccasin
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Elaphe guttata
Morone saxatillis
gray fox
com snake
stripped bass
Castor canadensis
Morone americanus
beaver
white perch
Procyon lotor
Esox sp.
raccoon
Pike
Didelphus marsupialus
Acipenser sp.
opossum
Sturgeon
Ondatra zibethica
Micropterus sp.
muskrat
Black bass
Sylvilagus floridanus
Moxostoma sp.
eastern cottontail rabbit
Carolina redhorse
Sciurus carolinensis
Perca flavescens
eastern gray squirrel
yellow perch
Mephitis mephitis
Micropogonias undulatus
skunk
Atlantic croaker
Anguilla rostrata
American eel
Amieurus nebulosus
brown bullhead catfish
Micropterus salmoides
lar emouth bass
the location of the execution of John Lawson, who had devoted much time to learning about the tribe. He
was captured at the beginning of the Tuscarora War and held for months with an associate and two slaves
in Catechna. After quarreling with one of the chiefs, he was tortured and killed; the others were eventually
set free (Byrd and Heath 1997). There has been some debate as to the exact location of the town based on
conflicting historical accounts, but in 1997, archaeologists from East Carolina University settled on the areas
around Grifton based on a synthesis of historical and archaeological research (Byrd and Heath 1997).
The Cashie II phase begins with period of initial contact with Europeans and ends with the close of
the Tuscarora War. Early European explorers, such as John Lawson, interacted and documented details
about the Tuscaroras and their settlements. In 1701, John Lawson, the explorer, wrote that the Tuscarora
had fifteen towns and almost twelve hundred fighting men (Rights 1957). Figure 2.4 shows a map of the
project area made by Lawson (1709).
There were two dialects of the Tuscarora language in North Carolina and each group operated as
independent polities (Heath and Swindle 2011). These are referred to as the Upper Tuscaroras and the Lower
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y. 19

Tuscaroras. King Blunt was the leader of the Upper Tuscarora towns concentrated on the Tar -Pamlico and
Roanoke rivers. These people were called the Skarure. King Hancock was leader of the Lower Tuscaroras
towns concentrated along Contentnea Creek, a maj or tributary of the Neuse River. These people were called
the Kahtehnu. It is estimated that there were 6,000-8,000 people among the Upper and Lower Tuscaroras
by the early 1700s (Heath and Swindle 2011).
The designation of Tuscarora settlements as "towns" or "villages" by early European observers has
been used to imply that the Tuscaroras were concentrated in large compact communities. However,
archaeological surveys along Contentnea Creek have shown that Lower towns were not nucleated settlements
(Beaman 2010). They appear to have been arranged into loosely arranged clusters of multi -family hamlets,
or extended family farmsteads. They were located on elevated land forms with loamy soil along Contentnea
Creek and its second and third order tributaries (Heath and Swindle 2011). Palisaded settlements may have
dispersed near primary settlements as a defensive measure, as disperse settlements tend to be more difficult
to defend from attack.
The time of contact between Indians living in North Carolina and Europeans arriving from Spain and
England varied considerably across the state. The earliest European arrivals did not herald the beginnings
of significant changes in the histories of North Carolina's tribes. In fact, the Tuscarora and their Algonkian
neighbors remained relatively immune to the effects of European settlement until 1650 when Virginia
colonists began to move into northeastern North Carolina (Ward and Davis 1999:273-275). They were
among the first groups of Native Americans that English explorers and colonizers encountered in North
Carolina.
By the mid 1600s, the Tuscaroras were receiving European trade goods. They became important
partners to the colonists in the deer -skin and the Native American slave trades. Trade items were of minor
importance until around 1650, but by 1700 iron hoes, nails, spikes, axes, and knives were being regularly
traded. Glass beads were also important trade items, as were copper items. Copper and brass kettles were
often used as raw materials to make other items, such as copper beads and tinklers. European manufactured
ceramics have also been found at Tuscarora sites (Heath and Swindell 2011).
Land -grabbing by Europeans and an illegal trade in Native Americans as slaves set the stage for
subsequent conflicts with the tribes of the coast and Coastal Plain. Wars in other parts of the colonies, such
as the Chowanoc War in Virginia in 1675, fostered a negative attitude toward the native tribes by the settlers
(Ward and Davis 1999). The Lords Proprietors gave colonists permission to deal with the natives as they
saw fit, and colonists encroached upon native lands with little or no compensation.
The restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660 resulted in the distribution of rewards to those who
had supported the Royalist cause during the upheaval (Powell 1989). This initiated the Proprietary colonial
period in the Carolinas, which lasted from 1663 until 1729. The Colony of Carolina was established in 1663
when approximately 500 settlers were living between Albemarle Sound and the Virginia border. By the late
1600s, settlers had moved to Pamlico Sound and, not long after, moved to the Neuse River Basin (Ward and
Davis 1999).
The settlers' movement inland began to cause friction with the Tuscarora Indians. Although settlers
did not move into what would become Wilson County until the 1740s, a historic Tuscarora town, Tosneoc
(Toisnot), is believed to have been located there. The town was named by John Lawson in the chronicle of
his journey from Charleston, South Carolina to Bath, North Carolina. Recent investigations in Wilson
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 20

County have identified eighteen sites that could be identified with the Tuscarora community of Tosneoc.
The sites are clustered along Contentnea Creek and its tributaries (Beaman 2008).
The proprietary government instructed the settlers to deal with the Tuscaroras as they saw fit, which
generally meant they took the land with little or no compensation. In addition to land grabbing, settlers also
engaged in Indian slave trading despite its illegality. Frustrated with the situation, the Tuscaroras sought
permission to move to Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania agreed to accept the Tuscaroras, provided North Carolina
certify the past good behaviour of the Tuscaroras. North Carolina refused to provide the certification (Ward
and Davis 1999).
Figure 2.6 shows the project region when John Lawson passed through in 1701. In 1711, a group
of Swiss settlers went to settle land near the confluence of the Neuse and Trent rivers. They found an Indian
village occupying the land. John Lawson, the surveyor -general, told the settlers they had title to the land and
to remove the Indians (Utley and Washburn 1985). On September 22, 1711, the Tuscaroras attacked the
colonists killing more than 130 people beginning the Tuscarora War. Among the first casualties of the
Tuscarora War was John Lawson (Powell 1989).
a v
L .B Z�
D Project Area " .,
�0,
Zx
C rxlfi2rrrz 3 "the
00
f 13'ej�11'
Figure 2.6. Map showing the project vicinity in the early eighteenth century (Lawson 1709).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
21

Colonel John Barnwell of South Carolina led a force of 30 soldiers and 500 Indians to North
Carolina to help defeat the Tuscaroras. After forcing the Tuscaroras into a treaty in the Spring of 1712,
Barnwell immediately seized some Indians as slaves, breaking the treaty. Fighting resumed in the summer
of 1712. Colonel James Moore, also from South Carolina, marched on the Tuscarora's main fighting force
at Fort Neoheroka on Contentnea Creek (in present day Greene County) in March 1713. Several hundred
natives were killed, and 400 were captured and sold into slavery to pay for the campaign (Utley and
Washburn 1985).
During the war, a small portion of the Tuscaroras living along the northern limits of their range
remained friendly to the settlers. Because they were neutral during the war, they were given preferential
treatment. In 1715, Tom Blount, their chief, signed a peace treaty, formally ending the war. Most of the
Tuscaroras soon moved to New York to live with their Iroquois relatives (Powell 1989; Utley and Washburn
1985; Ward and Davis 1999).
The Tuscaroras sought permission to move to Pennsylvania to save their way of life, but were denied
when North Carolina failed to certify their past good behavior. Seeing no alternative, on September 22,
1711, the Tuscarora revolted, killing 130 colonists. The ensuing Tuscarora War lasted three and half years
and left 200 colonists and 1,000 tribal members dead, and approximately 1,000 more sold into slavery (Ward
and Davis 1999:274).
The Tuscarora War (1711-1713) was in fact a conflict between several Native American groups and
the colonists. The Lower Tuscaroras, and some oftheir Algonkian and Siouan neighbors attacked plantations
on the lower Tar -Pamlico and Neuse rivers. The upper Tuscaroras remained neutral or at times even allied
with the colonists of Carolina and Virginia (Heath and Swindle 2011). After the defeat of the Lower
Tuscaroras at Neoheroka Fort, King Blunt was recognized by the colonists as the "King of the Tuscaroras."
Post -Contact Period
Years of turmoil brought about by an unstable system of government and the resulting Tuscarora War
left the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. These conditions persisted until the Lords and Proprietors
were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989). Some Tuscaroras
remained in North Carolina after the Tuscarora War, and their material remains are associated with the
Cashie III phase. At this time, most Carolina Tuscaroras lived within the Indian Lands reservation of Bertie
County. These were mostly from the Upper Tuscarora towns. Over several decades the lands were leased
or sold and the regional population diminished as some people relocated among the Haudenosaunee in New
York or in other colonies (Heath and Swindle 2011). The last group of Tuscaroras living at Indian Woods
relocated to New York in 1803.
The acquisition of North Carolina by the Crown initiated a period of relatively stable government.
During this time, immigration into North Carolina was along three major routes (Powell 1989): western
North Carolina was settled by German and Scots -Irish immigrants arriving from Pennsylvania and Virginia
via the Great Wagon Road; new arrivals at the important towns of New Bern and Brunswick pushed west
up the Cape Fear and Neuse river valleys; and colonists from South Carolina advanced up the Pee Dee and
Catawba rivers in search of new land.
The first English and Scots -Irish settlers arrived in the area that would become Wilson County during
the 1740s, although the population was sparse. Figure 2.7 shows the sparsely settled area in 1770. As late
as the Revolutionary War, the population of the project region was low.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 22

41,� it fiver
ro
19
—T-A R kt TT
r
�.E $ DIA
16m-
Project Area \ _:
kw ?• ��_
a2
Figure 2.7. Portion of the 1770 Collett map showing the project vicinity.
During the Revolutionary War in 1781, British General Cornwallis wrote to General Clinton "North
Carolina is, of all the provinces in North America, the most difficult to attack... on account of its great extent,
of its numberless rivers and creeks, and the total want of interior navigation" (Carrington 1974). In spite of
these setbacks, the British did fight in North Carolina. They focused much of their strength on dividing the
north and the south, somewhere along the Virginia line but were hindered by the low number of Loyalist
supporters in the area, as well as their minimal knowledge of the land. Two large victories were won along
the North Carolina/South Carolina border that helped turn the tide toward eventual American victory. The
October 7, 1780 Battle of Kings Mountain was an enormous victory of Patriots over Loyalists that caused
Cornwallis to withdraw out of North Carolina back into South Carolina (Powell 1989). Not long after, at
Cowpens, on January 17, 1781, the Americans defeated the British again under the command of Daniel
Morgan. Nine months later Cornwallis surrendered to Washington in Yorktown, Virginia (Powell 1989).
No fighting took place in Wilson County, but General Cornwallis did march across the area on his way to
Wilmington.
Following the Revolutionary War, paper money lost its value, agricultural pursuits were no longer
profitable, and commerce slowed almost to a stop. Lack of adequate transportation and communication made
improvements nearly impossible. Large numbers of Highlanders left North Carolina, returning to Great
Britain or emigrating to Canada, Florida, and the West Indies (Powell 1989). It was not until the beginning
-Anc�„.. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
23

of the nineteenth century that gains were made in repairing these economic and social damages. The
production of tar, turpentine, and lumber from vast pine forests in the Sandhills District soon became a maj or
cash industry (Powell 1989; Wilson County 2008).
Railroads first came to what would become Wilson County (Edgecombe County at the time) in the
1830s. The Wilmington and Raleigh railroad was completed in 1939 with stops at Bardin's Depot, Toisnot,
and Joyner's Depot. These stops would later become the towns of Black Creek, Wilson, and Elm City,
respectively. State legislators from Edgecombe County, introduced bills in1848 to establish the town of
Wilson. Wilson was incorporated on January 29, 1849 and was named after Louis Dicken Wilson, a long
time state representative and senator. Wilson County was formed six years later in 1855. Wilson became
the county seat (City of Wilson 2008; Corbitt 2000; Wilson County 2008).
North Carolina saw much more fighting on its own soil during the Civil War. The fall of New Bern
in 1862 alarmed the North Carolinians who responded by initiating military training camps all over including
around LaGrange and Kinston. Troops assembled in Kinston to build defenses but were soon sent to defend
Petersburg, leaving the Kinston front weakened (Trotter 1989). Union forces had to move through the area
to get to Goldsboro, igniting a few battles. Two major battles were fought near Kinston (12 miles southwest
of the project tract), the Kinston Battle in 1862 and the Battle of Wyse Fork Battle in 1865. Both battles
occurred when Confederate troops attempted to halt the advance of the Union army toward Goldsboro. In
both instances, the Union troops won. On March 14, 1865, Kinston fell to the Union Army. Pitt County saw
a battle at Tranter's Creek, which forms the northeastern boundary of the County, in 1862. Union soldiers
out of Washington, North Carolina fought Confederate soldiers who were barricaded in mill buildings along
the creek. The Confederate Colonel, George Singletary, was killed and the rest of his troops retreated
(National Park Service 2015).
Local economies in most of the southern states were devastated after the Civil War due to the loss
of slave labor and damage to property and fields. Few farmers had the money to pay for field labor and many
had to sell their land (York 1992). Farm size also began to decline during this time period as tenancy
increased (Piehl 1979). The tenant farmer system led to economic and social problems in the region, and
many African American laborers who could afford to migrated to other areas. This migration began at the
end of the 1870s and continued through the 1890s (Watson 1979). Tobacco gained in popularity due to
lowering prices of cotton, and by the nineteenth century tobacco joined cotton as a major cash crop (Piehl
1979). This tobacco boom stimulated a population boom as well (Black and Black 1989).
The Civil War had little direct effect on Wilson County, as no major battles were fought in the
county. However, Union General William T. Sherman marched his soldiers through the region in March
1865 on their way to Raleigh. On March 19, 1865, Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston and his troops
waited for Sherman's arrival at Bentonville, a small town in Johnston County south of Wilson County.
Between 85,000 and 90,000 soldiers were involved in the battle, and it was one of the bloodiest battles ever
fought in North Carolina. More than 4,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or missing (Angley et al. 1995;
Powell 1989). After the battle, Sherman moved on to occupy Raleigh.
Figure 2.8 presents a map of the project vicinity at the end of the Civil War (Bache 1865). After
the Civil War came to an end, the South was divided into five military districts with a general commander
to help organize elections and the rebuilding of government. The Carolinas were overseen by Major General
Daniel Sickles. Before they could rejoin the Union, all of the Southern states were required to ratify the
Fourteenth Amendment, which gave citizenship and civil liberties to freed blacks, and allow universal
suffrage. North Carolina ratified the amendment and reentered the Union in 1868 (Powell 1989).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 24

yll
r
Figure 2.8. Map showing the project area at the end of the Civil War (Bache 1865).
During this period, the naval stores industry began to wane and tar and turpentine became less
economically viable. In Wilson County, cotton became the cash crop, as it was for the surrounding counties
and throughout the south. By the 1890s, tobacco had become more important, and Wilson opened its first
tobacco warehouse in 1890. Wilson had the country's largest flue -cured market in 1919 and came to be
known as the "World's Greatest Tobacco Market" (Harrell 2008).
Wilson County remained rural and dependent on agriculture until World War II. Following the war,
the economy diversified as manufacturing plants moved to the county. Today, Wilson County has large tire
and pharmaceutical plants as well as several smaller manufacturing plants. Despite the diversification,
Wilson County remains home to tobacco marketing firms and is still a large producer of flue -cured tobacco
(Wilson County 2008).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
25

Chapter 3. Results of Background Research
Background research began with a review of reports, maps, and files at the North Carolina Office
of State Archaeology (OSA). in Raleigh. A review of site files records identified two previously recorded
archaeological sites in the project tract (31 WL02 and 31 WL178/178* *) and an additional five archaeological
sites within 0.5 mile of the tract boundaries (Table 3.1; Figure 3.1).
Table 3.1. Summary of Archaeological Sites in the Project Vicinity.
Site Number
Component
Reference
31 WL02
Native American
archaeological site form
31 WL03
Native American
archaeological site form
31 WL05
Native American
archaeological site form
31 WL06
Native American
archaeological site form
31WL178/178** (WCS-4)
Native American
Historic (18th/19th c)
Gardner 1990
31WL179 (WCS-5)
Native American
Gardner 1990
31WL180 (WCS-6)
Native American
Gardner 1990
Site 31 WL02 is a Native American site. The location plotted for the site on the OSA topographic
map is in the central portion of the southern half of the survey tract; a site boundary is not shown, just a
triangle symbol noting its general location. This site was recorded by Hugh B. Johnson in 1968. Mr.
Johnson had recorded numerous archaeological sites in Wilson County, but unfortunately he did not record
the precise locations of the artifacts he collected (Thomas Beaman, personal communication 2017). The
archaeological site file data notes that the site was revisited in 1975 by Trawick Ward. A surface collection
was made at this time but there is no record of what was collected.
In 1990, East Carolina University conducted the Wilson County Archaeological project. The object
of the project was to "promote interest in the area's past, to provide secondary school teachers with
knowledge and experience about local prehistory and history which they could then convey to their students,
and to expose the general public to the discipline and methods of archaeology" (Gardner 1991:1). The
survey focused along land along Toisnot Creek and the primary research focus was to try and locate the
remains of the Tuscarora settlement of Tosneoc. The survey used students and volunteers to conduct field
and lab work. During the course of the project, approximately 250 acres were surveyed and 14
archaeological sites were recorded. Field methods focused on surface survey only, so subsurface data was
not collected from any of the sites. Site 31WL178/178** was one of the sites recorded during the survey,
and was given a field designation as Site WCS-4 (Gardner 1991). However, in the project report the
discussion of the site (as well as the rest of the sites recorded) is limited to an artifact inventory. The artifacts
were collected from an area approximately 100 meter in diameter. A total of 465 artifacts were collected
from 31WL178/178**, including 11 sand tempered pottery fragments (1 listed as complicated stamped, the
remainder as indeterminate fragments), 56 stone tools and tool fragments, and 398 pieces of lithic debitage.
The lithic tools include 10 projectile points/knives (PPKs) identified as Stanley, Morrow Mountain,
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 26

42
� i ; m • � r . � I J
!11' ��' Caul ort sate Hwy a2' i 4. OW #Edwa
jrr f - M if ro
31WL5
inot
/r t-r3l
�f
31WL8
WL1791179** .3 Cj� �/''•_✓ � II
�f "*` 31WL178117841
31WL212'*
J .f
Hut f 1i �� C
o
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
f' �, -:� }�� �� i.-W Tract Boundary N
Previously Recorded Site S
0 200 400 600 800
Meters
Figure 3.1. Map showing the locations ofpreviously recorded archaeological sites in the proj ect vicinity
(USGS 1978 Saratoga, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
27

Guilford, Savannah River, Halifax, and Woodland triangular types, one preform, 19 bifaces, nine retouched
flakes, one hammerstone, three cores, and one anvil stone. There is no notation of the types of raw lithic
materials present. A total of 74 historic glass and ceramic artifacts were also collected from
31WL178/178**. The collection includes three dark green bottle fragments and 71 ceramic artifacts. The
ceramic artifacts include creamware, pearlware, stoneware, and porcelain fragments. These indicate a
possible middle eighteenth through nineteenth century historic period of use and/or occupation at the site.
Gardner (1991) noted that the survey failed to locate any site likely to be the Tuscarora town of Tosneoc.
A nearby survey by Tom Hargrove (1992) gives some idea of site density in the vicinity of the study
area. Hargrove's (1992) survey is located about one mile east of the current project area, and encompassed
400 acres. As with the Gardner (1991) survey, surface survey was the principal method used and no
subsurface excavations were conducted. A total of 24 archaeological sites were recorded, giving the survey
area a site density of one site per 16.6 acres. Nineteen of the sites have prehistoric components, 10 of which
have Woodland components. Sites 31WL197 and 31WL201 had possible Late Woodland components.
Hargrove (1992) did not recommend additional work at any of the prehistoric sites.
Figure 3.2. Wilson County soil map from 1925 showing the
project area.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
A review of historic maps and
aerial photographs was conducted.
The 1925 Wilson County soil survey
map (Figure 3.2), a 1957 aerial
photograph (Figure 3.3), and the 1978
USGS Saratoga, NC topographic map
(see Figure 3.1), as well as a more
modern aerial photograph (Figure 3.4),
reveal that numerous structures have
been present in the study tract. We
were able to determine that two
businesses once operated at least
partially within the project area. The
Larry Moore Dairy Farm was located
in the project area until about 1970.
According to David Morton of Bartlett
Engineering (personal communication
2017) , his uncle worked at the dairy
farm in 1966, but joined the military
and did a tour of duty in Viet Nam.
When he completed his military
service in 1970 and returned home, the
dairy farm was no longer in operation.
Around 1990, a hog farm operated by
Mo Mohensky was constructed at least
partially within the survey area
(Robert Bartlett, Bartlett Engineering,
personal communication 2017).
Construction of the hog farm and road
improvements have heavily impacted
elements of the dairy farm once
located in the project vicinity.
Y' 28

Figure 3.3. Aerial photograph from 1957 showing structures in the project vicinity linked to a dairy
farm.
-ACC, lncr;` Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
29

Figure 3.4. Aerial photograph from 1993 showing the newly constructed hog farm.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 30

Chapter 4. Results of Field Survey
The project tract totals approximately 34 acres, mostly encompassing fallow agricultural fields,
although the remains of a hog farm occupies a number of acres within the tract. As noted in Chapter 1,
survey methods included 30-meter interval shovel tests across the entire tract except in the hog farm area,
followed by 15-meter interval shovel tests around any initial survey shovel test that yielded artifacts. As a
result of the survey, two archaeological sites, 31WL2/2** and 31WL178/178**, were identified and
evaluated (Figures 4.1 through 4.3).
Structures are shown in the project area on the 1925 Wilson County soil map, a 1957 aerial
photograph, and the 1967 Saratoga, NC USGS topographic map. These structures were associated with the
Larry Moore Dairy Farm. However, they were all destroyed by construction of the hog farm and graded road
that bisects the project tract. The hog farm began operation about 1990 and continued until about 2005
(Robert Bartlett, Bartlett Engineering, personal communication 2017). Figures 4.4 through 4.7 show
elements of the hog farm that remain in the western portion of the project area. Construction of the hog farm
impacted a portion of 32WL178/178**, and it is possible that sites 31WL2/2** and 31WL178/178** were
once comprised of a continuous artifact scatter prior to this disturbance.
Field investigations were conducted 17-20 October 2017. The author served as Field Director and
the field crew consisted of Andy Jordan, Brooke Brilliant, Katherine Parker, Dawn Reid, and Luan Cao.
Time spent in the field surveying the tract totaled about 87 person hours, or about 11 person days.
A total of 352 shovel tests were excavated during this investigation, with artifacts collected from 128
of these. A total of 121 shovel tests were excavated during the initial 30-meter interval survey coverage.
Artifacts were collected from 37 of these shovel tests. An additional 231 shovel tests were then excavated
at 15-meter intervals to further evaluate archaeological deposits. Ninety-one of these tests yielded artifacts.
A total of 505 historic and prehistoric artifacts and 104.66 grams of various historic materials (i.e., brick,
mortar, etc.) were collected during this investigation. The artifact inventory is presented in Appendix A and
representative artifact photographs are in Appendix B.
Site 31WL02/02** Revisit
Site Type: Historic artifact scatter
Prehistoric artifact scatter
Component: Early Archaic, Middle Woodland,
Late Woodland
Middle 19`h-Early 20' century
NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unassessed
UTM (NAD 27): N3956606 E241125
USGS Quad: Saratoga, NC (1978)
Soil Type: Altavista fine sandy loam, Gritney sandy
loam, Tarboro sand, Tomotley fine sandy loam,
Wagram loamy sand
Site 31WL02/02** was identified by a local artifact collector, Hugh B. Johnson, in 1968. Mr.
Johnson made a general collection of artifacts but did not keep records on artifacts themselves or their
specific locations. The site form on file at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) indicates that the site was
revisited by Trawick Ward in 1975, but there is no information provided as to his activities there. Maps on
file as OSA show only a general location for the site, with a triangle symbol plotted in the southern portion
of the project tract.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 31

Al
�jr
,. f�
31WL1781178**
f
i�
+ ti4
rlf .r r i AF . !j
31WL212** f �•_ +f `'
/ X 1
f t ff i r
311. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
v
f Tract Boundary
Arehaeolagicai Site
-- - - 0 200 400 600 Boo
�-�
� Meters
Figure 4.L Map showing the locations of 31WL2/2** and3lWL178/178** (1978 USGS Saratoga, NC
7.5minute topographic quadrangle).
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
32

Vr _
Q.
ko
D a O 0 DD 0 0 Do
0 0 -0 00 C) c] ..
O a D 4 d' fl 0 0 a 0 0 0)
. t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 D
0 0 -0 ❑ D 0
. &I..,t
s+' Q-, a D D■ 0 0 0 6 0
_ 113 '.11 105 1Cr3 107-
4 a 0 0 0 0 0,-
57 :�R
AG
100
•
a
O
O
a
1011
xe
i
f
0
0
of
0•
"
» _
k7
K
3a
P1
a1
0
0
0
0
00
Waste Lagoon
0
0
6
0
0'.
PO
81
37, 83
0
o
a
6
0
00
a
rr}
rr
i�
0
0
0
0
•
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
D
a
a
'
-5;
V
71
-
T3
0
00
0
o
0
0
0❑
0
E'3
Ea
Fi
%E
6
O
O
0
0
O
o
D
0 0
❑
a
Q❑
0
o
04
c
6
o
o
o
O
0 0
4
0
0
0
0
+ 0
0
4
0
0
0
a
0
0 0 O
4
0
6
ti tip'.
SC
0
0
0
00
o
0
0
A.
0
a
0
y r
:'
a'
c
t_
4S AK7-47�=la$
=c
•
O
0
0
0_
D
00
0 0 0
a
q
er.
37;
iEi
C
0
0
00
Q,
❑�
❑
0 0 0 0
0
0 a 0 0 0 a 0 a
0
2£
0
0 0
, 33
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
P-
as 26
� Project Boundary
6 • 4
20
4
21
22 =23
0 Now Archaeological Site
-
0 0 o a 0■
0
O
D
�
0 4'
o Positive Shovel Test
a a 0 0
•,y
02
0
03 0
• Negative Shovel Test
�
R
9
10
0 0 a 0 a 0 0
0
7
0
3
0 f
d 5r
} X No Dig
sr. a 0 0
0
0
'
0
N
6 6
a
9 30 50 90 120
SLE
y. Meters
Figure 4.2. Aerial photograph showing site details.
-ACC,�nc.-- Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
33

0
ii ❑ ❑
0 ❑ o r
o ❑ ❑ 0
❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a
0]
25 26
0 ❑ ❑ ❑ a 0 0'
� 73"..23
o ❑ D D a •
20 a
❑ 0 ❑❑ D D 0 0
16 17 18 19
r a 1C13 14 _
O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 24 13 4 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i
O ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ O
O ❑ ❑ O ❑ •
109 114 111 112
O ❑ O ❑ ❑
-103 104 105 196 1il7
i97 98 99 140 1il2
Q
8
❑
Waste Lagoon 3
- 79
0 ❑
❑ — 1 '0
0
• ❑ 0
Su 57 58
❑ • 0 D 0 ❑
59 fi0
D
fit
❑ o• 0 00 a
55
c❑❑
50 53
❑ o a -
52
53
54
o
41 2 43 45
48 47
48
49 �
i ❑ CI
D
36 37 3 39
O ❑
46
- 31
O O O O o ❑' '
32
28
33
34 35
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
D ❑
24
zs 2s
Project Boundary
a ❑ ❑ o D a
❑ a Q,
0
zo z1
z2
z 3
New Archaeological site
❑ D D o a a❑
15 16
12
17
13
1a
o Positive Shovel Test
0 ❑ ❑ ❑,
• Negative Shovel Test
❑ 0 0 0 ❑ ❑
8
14
x No Dig
❑ ❑ ❑
3
1
4
5
N
❑ ❑ 0
❑
0 30 60 90 120
Meters
Figure 4.3. LiDAR map showing site details.
-A£C,Inc. Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
34

Figure 4.4. View of hog farm silos and hog house rubble, facing west.
Figure 4.5. View of hog house foundation, facing west.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 35

Figure 4.6. View of concrete structure next to waste lagoon, facing southeast.
Figure 4.7. View of waste lagoon, facing east.
-ACC, lncr; Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
ti
36

This site occupies most of the project tract that is south of the graded road. This portion of the
project area had been in cultivation for many years, but was fallow with tall weeds during field
investigations. Artifacts were collected from 33 shovel tests during the initial 30-meter interval survey. An
additional 186 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals around the original positive shovel tests, and
artifacts were collected from 80 of these. Based on the distribution of positive shovel tests, dimensions of
360 meters north -south by 285 meters east -west were established (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3).
As five different soil types are present within the site boundaries, it is not surprising that soil profiles
in shovel tests varied. Figures 4.8 through 4.11 show examples of shovel test profiles. In the far southern
part of the site at Provenience 3 (N185 E425), the soil profile consists of a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4)
sandy loam plowzone to a depth of about 30 centimeters. Below this was yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sandy
loam to a depth of about 50 centimeters. Sterile subsoil consisted of yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sandy clay
loam. At Provenience 16 (N230 E425) the plowzone consisted of approximately 25 centimeters of brown
(10YR4/3) sandy loam. Dark yellowish brown (1 OYR4/6) sandy loam extended to a depth of 55 centimeters
below surface. Sterile subsoil consisted of light yellowish brown (10YR6/4) sandy clay loam. The shovel
test at Provenience 25 (N260 E455) exposed a plowzone of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) sandy loam to
a depth of about 30 centimeters. Below this was yellowish brown (10YR5/6) sandy loam. Sterile subsoil
consisted of brownish yellow (10YR6/6) sandy clay loam. At the northern end of the site, the soil profile
at Provenience 97 (N500 E 500) consists of a dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) sandy loam plowzone to a
depth of approximately 35 centimeters. Beneath this was yellowish brown (10YR5/4) sandy loam to a depth
of 55 centimeters. Sterile subsoil was light gray (10YR7/2) sandy loam.
A total of 441 historic and prehistoric artifacts and 84.9 grams of miscellaneous historic material
were collected from 113 shovel tests at 31 WL02/02**. Native American artifacts were collected from 104
shovel tests and historic artifacts were collected from 28 shovel tests. Most of the historic artifacts at
31 WL2/2** are concentrated in the northeastern part of the site (Figure 4.12), in the vicinity of a cluster of
structures possibly associated with the Larry Moore Dairy Farm (see Figure 3.3).
Historic artifacts include ceramic (n=4), glass (n=37), metal (n=5), asphalt shingle (n=4), bone (n=1),
plastic (n=6), unidentified material (n=1), slate fragments (n=2), mortar (n=4.6g), brick (n= 78.4 g), and coal
(n=1.9g). Ceramic artifacts include an ironstone fragment, two stoneware fragments, and a ceramic marble.
Glass artifacts are more abundant than ceramic artifacts at 31WL02/02**. Based on established
manufacturing dates, the historic material recovered from this site reflect an occupation period spanning the
middle nineteenth through early twentieth centuries. Table 4.1 presents a summary of this material.
A total of 381 Native American artifacts were collected from 104 shovel tests at 31WL02/02**
(Figure 4.13; Table 4.2). This includes 62 ceramics and 319 lithic artifacts. Ceramics were collected from
41 shovel tests (Figure 4.14). Fifteen sherds are identified as belonging to the Late Woodland Cashie series,
primarily based on temper type. These include one simple stamped sherds, one sherd whose surface
decoration could not be identified, and 13 residual sherds. Five sherds are identified as Middle Woodland
Mount Pleasant sherds; two have plain surfaces, one has an unidentifiable surface modification, and two are
residual sherds. Nine pottery fragments are tentatively identified as Early Woodland/Middle Woodland types
(Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant). Two of these sherds have fabric impressed surfaces and seven are small
residual sherds. Overall, the highest percentage of recovered sherds (53%) are residual.
Lithic artifacts dominate the artifacts assemblage, accounting for 84 percent (n=319) of the total
Native American artifacts recovered (Table 4.3). Metavolcanic artifacts are most common (n=184). These
were collected from 71 shovel tests and account for 57.7 percent of the lithic artifacts in the assemblage.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 37

r•
ter. .
Figure 4.8. Shovel test at Provenience 3 (N185 E425), 31WL02/02**.
IL
Figure 4.9. Shovel test at Provenience 16 (N230 E425), 31WL02/02**
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
38

• �-+�+�^ •� ,i' is -r, — __ �!' �'
�Wti .S� Y`ti
3� "
Figure 4.10. Shovel test at Provenience 25 (N260 E455), 31 WL02/02**.
,a,'r�� � �y�;g r •L
1 f ,yy
Figure 4.11. Shovel test at Provenience 97 (N500 E500), 31 WL02/02**
-ACC, lnar• " Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
ti
39

--own- --
.. �• s
w r 1 8 � 9�C-111 112.
a 103 'C4 105 •C6
�y ��-107
R 0 L98yy 0
ti 97 99 CC 101 102
0 �'.
93 94 95 96
R 0 0-
.. 87 88 89 90 91
X
84 85 S6 ■.
}. R 0
79 80 81 �a 82 83 w
X
76 77 78
w w w ! X
68 69 70 71 72 73 w� ~
62 63 �:. 64 65 66
58 57 5S 59 60 61
■
0
Gil i ! w • i • i w i • „ w w ! i -
50 51 52 53 54
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
36 7 38 39 40 }ii1 :'" A 04
• ' i ti:
Tim 32 33 34 35 r+'
27 28 29 30 * rN VV
24 25 26 •.� r
19 20 222 23'. 9' ±yi . ..►.,
000
14 15 16 17 A.k
11 ' 12 13 , N
s R E ., 41
6 7 8 9 10 Wf
i w ! 2 :3 5 Site 31 WL02102w*
1
Project Boundary Brick Only
NewArchaeciogical Site Historic Artifacts
Positive ST 0
i Negative ST 1 - 4
R`� •''Y X No Dig * 5-8
r N':-.� �•_�. � f.e ��1►�.: T.Y •�: :fir R 4� h
0 25 50 75 100
+ •;= " ti i ti'+i'E"..� •. :`.''ti .''1,... + +yam; :-, .
Meters
Figure 4.12. Plan snap showing the distribution of historic artifacts at 31 WL02/02**.
-r GCJnc. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
40

Table 4.1. Summary of Historic Artifacts Recovered from Site 31WL02/02**.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity/Weight
Ceramics:
Ironstone, Undecorated
post 1840'
1
Stoneware, Albany Slipped
1830-19202
1
Unglazed Stoneware
1
Marble, Unglazed Earthenware
common mid- 1700s to 1930s3
1
Glass:
Brown Bottle Glass
10
Clear Bottle Glass
9
Clear Flat Glass
3 window glass, 1 likely window glass
5
Clear Lamp Glass
very thin
l
Clear Unidentified Glass
1
Light Green Bottle Glass
2
Light Green Flat Glass
3 window glass, 5 likely window glass
8
Milkglass Unidentified Glass
green painted exterior
1
Metal:
Aluminum Button
2-hole, 1 piece, post 1880s°
1
Copper Alloy Fastener
possible rivet fragment
1
Iron Hardware
likely trivet leg, possibly cast iron cookware handle or leg
1
Iron Unidentified Form
1
Nail, UID
1
Other:
Asphalt Roofing Shingle Fragment
post 1840s'
4
Bone, UID Mammal
juvenile, unfused epiphysis from phalanx, possible pig
1
Brick Fragments
78.4g
Coal
1.9g
Mortar
4.6g
Plastic
post 18686
6
Slate Fragments
2
Unidentified
possible egg shell fragment or modern material
1
Total
60/84.9
lAultman et al. 2015; 2South 2004; 3Samford 2014; 4Marcel 1994; 5Wilson and Snodgrass 2008; 6Miller et al. 2000
.-AGC, Inc Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 41

108r 109-110-11'�12
i ! i Q D D o
1p1 104 105106 1054'
�- x i D [? '
:y• 9Ei 104 : 101 10
53 94 95 96 i
.'JR. —.7 i 0 0 0 i. i
y +�: S7 Sb 89 90 91 92
iC i Y 0 0 0i
{ ' 84 5� 86
79 }r,o ..� ; Q 83
• t t 0 C? 0
{76 78
X i d ! V 4J
74 75 ti
68 69 7071 72 r 73.
62 63 64 65 66
!!! Q! Q. G D D Q( Jar•
50. 57 58 59 60 6m.
! ! ! & ! ! 0 ! 0 Q 40
55
<7 • ! ! ! !
60 51 52 553 54
41 42 43 44 5,-. •46 47 49' 4
• 0 0 0 0
36 3 7 38 39 40
'1 32 '3 '4 35 71 r� * .Y
27 28 29 W .*
0 ! i 0 6 C : r1• !
24 26 20 4 F r*
,� i • i i 0 x
19 20 21 2222 23. +
t t4 0 4�h 4;? i$1 r F +
• a
11 12 ,3
i ! i a 0 - CI)0 r`
g 7 8 9 • A
0 0 Q
L 5
! . 6 C) 00.
t
i ! • Site 31WL02102**
Project Boundary Prehistoric Artifacts
yam' 'fit_ 0 New Archaeological Site 0 0
..$r Positive ST 1 -6
Negative ST 7 - 12
X No Dig 13 - 17
54 75 194
1 .,d
Meters
Figure 4.13. Map showing prehistoric artifact distribution at 31WL02/02**.
A£ [nc. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
42

Table 4.2. Summary of Prehistoric Ceramics Collected from Site 31WL02/02** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity
Ceramics:
Cashie Simple Stamped Body Sherd
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
1
Cashie UID Decorated Body Sherd
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
1
Cashie Residual Sherds
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
13
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant Fabric Impressed Body Sherd
Early/Middle Woodland
2
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant Residual Sherds
Early/Middle Woodland
7
Mount Pleasant Plain Body Sherds
2 mend, Middle Woodland
2
Mount Pleasant UID Decorated Body Sherd
Middle Woodland
1
Mount Pleasant Residual Sherds
possible Mount Pleasant, Middle
Woodland
2
UID Type Residual Sherds
33
Total
62
'Phelps and Heath 1998; 2Herbert 2009
Table 4.3. Summary of Prehistoric Lithics Collected from Site 31WL02/02** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity
Lithics:
Metavolcanic Biface Fragment
1
Metavolcanic Core
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
175
Metavolcanic Projectile Point Fragment
1
Metavolcanic Rock
3 cultural?
3
Metavolcanic Shatter
1
Metavolcanic Utilized Flake
2
Milky Quartz Projectile Point, Kirk/Palmer
Early Archaic'
1
Translucent Quartz Projectile Point Fragment
1
Quartz Fire Cracked Rock
1
Quartz Flake Tool
1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
92
Quartz Shatter
13
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 43

Quartzite Fire Cracked Rock
1
Quartzite Flake Tool
1
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
15
Sandstone Rock/Concretion
cultural?
4
UID Material Flake Tool
1
UID Material Flake/Flake Fragment
1
UID Material Groundstone
1
UID Material Rock
1 cultural?, 1 possible groundstone?
2
Total
319
`Coe 1964
Metavolcanic artifact classes include: biface fragment (n=1), core (n=1), flake/flake fragments (n=175), PPK
tip fragment (n=1), utilized flake (n=2), and rock/shatter (n=4).
Quartz accounts for 109 of the lithic artifacts recovered. These include an Early Archaic
Kirk/Palmer projectile point/knife (PPK), flakes, flake tools, and shatter. The remaining lithic artifacts
recovered are comprised of quartzite, sandstone, and an unidentifiable material. In terms of material
distribution, metavolcanics and quartz span the entire site with little evidence of discrete and/or isolated
concentrations (Figure 4.15). Quartzite appears to be more prevalent in the southern portion of the site.
Overall lithic artifacts are more concentrated in the northern and southern portions of the site, with lower
artifact concentrations noted in the central portion. Of the 71 shovel tests from which lithic artifacts were
recovered, 38 yielded had artifacts from sub-plowzone contexts.
In summary, 31WL02/02** is a multiple component archaeological site, with both historic and
prehistoric components. The historic artifact assemblage suggests the occupation may span the middle
nineteenth through early twentieth centuries. Most of the historic artifacts are concentrated in the
northeastern part of the site, in the vicinity of the former location of a structure complex, possibly associated
with the Larry Moore Dairy Farm. We found no evidence intact contexts associated with the historic
occupation. For this reason, the historic component at 31WL02/02** is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP.
The Native American occupation of 31WL02/02** is extensive, but discrete concentrations of
artifacts occur in the northern and southern ends of the site. The earliest occupation of the site took place
during the Early Archaic Period. A Kirk Corner Notched PPK was recovered in the northern part of the site
at Provenience 107 (N515 E560). This PPK was recovered from sub-plowzone contexts, and numerous
shovel tests at the site recovered artifacts from similar contexts. Middle and Late Archaic components were
identified by Gardner (1991) at 31WL178/178**, and it is possible that multiple Archaic components are
present in the apparently undisturbed sub-plowzone soils. Ceramic artifacts confirm Woodland Period
occupation at the site. Diagnostic ceramic types represent Middle and Late Woodland occupations. The Late
Woodland occupation is of interest because of its association with the Tuscarora. Possible Cashie pottery
fragments were collected from 16 shovel tests. Although these shovel tests are scattered across the site,
slight concentrations occur in the northern and southern parts of the site. Although none were identified
during this survey, intact cultural features including burials have been exposed at other Tuscarora
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 44

108 1 9 10 11
X t
97 g$ 99 !C. !o
0 C)
f
93 93 c) a0
# I a C) Jq i
is g7 9,1j f, fF
1.' Q
0.
53 55
79 $0 81 -82
t i t ,77 t
r76 7$
# • D -
74
$8 $9 70 71 72 73
02 sa sa `sa 6�
" • • • • _ i i _ i �.
S6 57 58 59 60 51
55
50 51 52 S3 54
41 42 43 44 as 46 47 48 49, �+
6 37 38 39 4Q 4
31 =2 '3 _"[ 35 y1r1
i i i t t t Q 9 0 O•A
27 28 9 30
i s t t •
as 25 5
.r.� t i • C
' 19 ?0 21 22 23 F
i e 0 0 •,
14 15 16 .7
11 12 13 /'�
t t t V IM () 0 �
6 7 g a 14 +N At
z 8
! • # 4 U O tt
1
• • { Site 31WL02/02**
Project Boundary Prehistoric: Ceramics
New Archaeological Site 0
c Positive 5T 0 1
• Negative ST () 2-3
X No Dig
4-5
N
0 25 50 75 100
lL' F
Mete rs
Figure 4.14. Map showing prehistoric ceramic artifact distribution at 31 WL02/02**.
A£ [nc. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
45

# M1 i
a e 110 1
10Bx 10d 11'Q r
i 1010105 10107
100101 102
�94 9a
Y
i E)9
x
9r�
' � FY : Sr 88 S9 9U 1
�: eAP�e
i• -
84 Sa 86
r
k?�f� 79 ;t, 0 q S10 6
X 74 ! ! �D, a
r 0_
! i i G! i i i 0
56 57 58 59 60 51
O.Geoe
50 51 52 A,
! 0 ! ! ! ! ! ! 0 ! i 0 ,P
�}1 �12 as a4 a� a15 a; as �� ; .4
:�6 .�: .�s .�s as n• s . ti so'
*�+
27 28 @ 29 ;iU
0 i 0 24 a2,� � .2a • .�:'
19 2C 1`! t2
14 t: 16 7' 18 • i�! u
Q T 1291
u 7 b 9 1U • t
0 1 G '� a t
'�— Site 31WL02102**
• ' ° Project Boundary
New Archaeoiogicai Site ® Metavolcanic
e positive ST 0 Quartz
• Negative 5T - Quartzite
X No dig
N
U 25 50 75 100
w F
Figure 4.15. Map showing prehistoric lithic artifact distribution by material type at 31WL02/02**
-AGC,,,'Inc. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
y,
46

archaeological sites in the region. As this site has the potential to contain intact Archaic and Woodland
archaeological deposits, further research will be necessary to determine its full research potential and NRHP
eligibility. At present, the NRHP status of site 31WL02/02**is considered unassessed at the survey level
of evaluation.
Site 31WL178/178** Revisit
Site Type: Historic artifact scatter UTM (NAD 27): N3956865 E241135
Prehistoric artifact scatter
Component: 181" century USGS Quad: Saratoga, NC (1978)
Archaic, Woodland
NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unassessed Soil Type: Wagram loamy sand
Site 31 WL178/178** was recorded in 1990 during a survey conducted by East Carolina University
(Gardner 1991). The survey collected historic and prehistoric artifacts from the site area, but there is no site
map showing the distribution of the different components. The site is in the vicinity of the easternmost
structure complex shown on the 1957 aerial photograph (see Figure 3.3). A structure is also shown near this
location on the 1925 Wilson County soil survey map (see Figure 3.2) and on the 1978 USGS Saratoga, NC
topographic map (see Figure 3.4). However, the historic artifact scatter in the far northeastern part of
31WL02/02** corresponds well to the historic structure complex on the 1957 aerial photograph and the
structures shown on the 1925 soil map and the 1978 topographic map as well making it difficult to determine
which of these sites may contain the remnants of those structures.
Site 31 WL 178/ 178* * is a multi -component site located in the northern part of this survey area. This
area has been cultivated for many years, but was fallow and overgrown with weeds during field
investigations (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4). Our examination of this area began with the excavation of shovel
tests at 30-meter intervals across the tract. Artifacts were collected from 12 shovel tests in the vicinity of
the plotted location of 31 WL 178/178**. An additional 54 shovel tests were excavated at 15-meter intervals
around all shovel tests where artifacts were collected during the 30-meter interval coverage. Based on the
distribution of artifacts in shovel tests, site dimensions measure approximately 120 meters north -south by
180 meters east -west were established (see Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Artifacts were recovered to a maximum
depth of approximately 65 centimeters below the ground surface, but sub-plowzone contexts were most
commonly encountered between 40 and 55 centimeters in depth.
The soil profile varied somewhat across the site. In all areas, the plowzone was comprised of brown
(10YR3/3) to dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) sandy loam. At Provenience 26 (N590 E440; Figure 4.16), the
plowzone (0-30 cm) was underlain by yellowish brown (10YR5/4) sandy loam to a depth of 40 centimeters.
Below this depth, yellowish brown (10YR5/8) sandy clay loam subsoil was present. However, at
Provenience 10 (N590 E440; Figure 4.17) subsoil was encountered much deeper. At this shovel test the
plowzone consisted of dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) sandy loam and extended to an approximate depth of
35 centimeters. The plowzone was underlain by yellowish brown (1 OYR5/4) sandy loam. Subsoil consisted
of yellowish brown (10YR5/8) sandy clay and was not encountered until a depth of 70 centimeters below
the ground surface.
Artifacts were collected from 12 shovel tests on the 30-meter grid at this site, and artifacts were
collected from an additional 15 shovel tests when completing the 15-meter interval coverage. In total,
artifacts were collected from 27 shovel tests at 31WL178/178**.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 47

Figure 4.16. Soil profile at Provenience 26 (N590 E440), 31WL178/178**.
vigure 4.17. Doll protlle at Provenience I (N65U L44U), 31 WL1 /t5/1 /ZS--.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
%' 48

Historic artifacts were collected from nine shovel tests and brick fragments were recovered from
another five tests (Figure 4.18; Table 4.4) . The recovered artifacts include five ceramic sherds, four glass
fragments, one piece of metal, and 19.6 grams of brick. The glass fragments (clear and brown bottle glass)
and metal chain link, are likely twentieth century contaminants, possibly associated with the middle twentieth
century dairy farm.
Table 4.4. Summary of Historic Artifacts Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity/
Weight
Ceramics:
Agateware, Lead Glazed
1740-17751
1
Creamware, Undecorated
1760-18202
1
Pearlware, Undecorated
1780-18402
1
Stoneware, Nottingham
1700-18102, rouletted design
1
Stoneware, White Salt -Glazed
1720-17752
1
Glass:
Brown Bottle Glass
1 with knurling on base, post 19403; 1 with
threaded finish, dominant post 19303
3
Clear Bottle Glass
1
Metal:
Chain Fragment
possible chain from bicycle or chainsaw
1
Other:
Brick Fragments
19.6g
Total
10/19.6
1FLMNH 2O09; 2South 1977; 3Lindsey 2017
Five historic ceramic fragments were collected; one fragment each of ceamware, pearlware,
agateware, white salt glazed stoneware, and Nottingham stoneware. The maximum range of manufacture
for these items is between 1700 and 1810, indicating an eighteenth century occupation. Brick fragments
recovered are clustered in the eastern portion of the site and may be related to a structure associated with the
early historic component.
Native American artifacts were collected from 25 shovel tests at 31 WL178/178** (Figure 4.19). A
total of 54 Native American artifacts were collected from the site. This includes nine ceramic fragments and
45 lithic artifacts. Figures 4.20 and 4.21 show the distribution of ceramic and lithic artifacts, respectively.
Native American ceramics (n=9) were collected from five shovel tests. The attributes of these ceramics are
presented in Table 4.5. Overall, the ceramics recovered are relatively small, with none greater than a few
centimeters in diameter. However, distinctive temper types and surface treatments could be identified
allowing several of the sherds to be assigned to a specific Woodland phase. One possible Early/Middle
Woodland Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant sherd and two possible Late Woodland Cashie sherds (associated
with the Tuscarora) were identified.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 49

Figure 4.18. Map showing historic artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**.
-ACC, lnc"•; Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina 50

Figure 4.19. Map showing Native American artifact distribution at 31 WL178/178**.
-ACC, lnc"•; Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
51

>f ,
24 26
p !
- "c2 2?
20i 21
L
Site 31WL1781178* • - * e
Project Boundary Prehistoric: Ceramics
= New Archaeological Site
Positive ST 1 • m:.
0 Negative ST 2
X No Dig `
3
a 20 40 60 80
y Metiers
Figure 4.20. Map showing Native American ceramic artifact distribution at 31WL178/178**.
-ACC,�nc Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
1!
52

""own
r
28
C2I
_ C 24 ? C26
C _ - 22> 23 i f
2 21 i
01S G16 01 r 018 01n
0 (D L) 0 01-1 01' (312 13 014,
o o e
- 1
Site 31WL1781178**
Project Boundary
New Archaeological Site Metavoleanic
Positive ST Quartz
• Negative ST i •
X No [Dig
v
0 20 40 W 30
E i • i
y Meters
Figure 4.21. Map showing Native American lithic artifact distribution by material type at
31WL178/178**.
-Anc�„.. Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
53

Table 4.5. Summary of Prehistoric Ceramics Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quantity
Ceramics:
Cashie Simple Stamped Body Sherd
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
1
Cashie Residual Sherds
possible Cashie, Late Woodland'
1
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant Residual Sherds
Early/Middle Woodland'
1
UID Type UID Decoration Body Sherd
1
UID Type Residual Sherds
5
Total
'Phelps and Heath 1998; 2Herbert 2009
A total of 45 lithic artifacts were collected from 24 shovel tests (Table 4.6). Although most of the
lithic artifacts were recovered from the plowzone, a number of shovel tests yielded lithic artifacts from sub-
plowzone contexts between 40 and 65 centimeters below the ground surface. The majority of the lithic
artifacts (n=28) are of metavolcanic material. Metavolcanic artifacts were collected from 19 shovel tests
and account for 62 percent of the lithic assemblage from 31WL178/178**. Fifteen quartz artifacts were
collected from 11 shovel tests, accounting for 33 percent of the lithic artifacts from the site.. One of the
quartz items is a small triangular point. Metavolcanic and quartz artifacts co-occur in six shovel tests. The
remaining two lithic artifacts from the site are of sandstone and an unidentified material.
Table 4.6. Summary of Prehistoric Lithics Collected from Site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Artifact Content
Description
Quanti
Lithics:
Metavolcanic Biface Fragment
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
27
Translucent Quartz Projectile Point
small triangular, possibly Late Woodland'
1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
14
Sandstone Rock
cultural?
1
UID Material Rock
cultural?
1
Total
45
'Coe 1964
In summary, 31 WL178/178** is a multiple component archaeological site The historic component
at 31WL178/178** may have been occupied a hundred years before the creation of Wilson County in 1855,
and before the founding of the Town of Wilson in 1849. The site's historic occupation span may date back
to the initial European settlement in the area when the Toisnot Primitive Baptist Church was established in
1756. While the early historic artifacts are relatively sparse at 31WL178/178**, they are concentrated in
an area where brick fragments suggest a structure once stood. Although the site appears to have been
impacted by the road constructed along its northern border, it is possible that intact historic cultural features
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 54

(well, privy, cellar, etc.) are present beneath the plowzone. The historic component at 31 WL 178/ 178* * may
have the potential to add to our understanding of early historic settlement in the region. The significance of
the historic component remains unassessed at the survey level of investigation and additional work is
recommended make a definitive statement about the NRHP eligibility of the historic component.
Although this investigation only identified Woodland Period components at 31WL178/178**,
Gardner's (1991) original surface survey of the site identified Middle and Late Archaic components at the
site. The Middle and Late Archaic components identified by Gardner (1991) may be linked to the deeper
sub-plowzone artifacts collected during this survey. This suggests that stratified deposits may be present.
The Native American occupation at 31 WL 178/178 * * is also of interest because of a possible association with
the Late Woodland Tuscarora. Possible Cashie sherds were collected from three shovel tests during this
investigation. The Tuscarora were the last Native Americans in the area and intact features have been found
at other Tuscarora sites in the region. Based on these considerations, the Native American component at
31WL178/178** may also have the potential to contribute new information about Archaic and Late
Woodland occupation in Wilson County. For these reasons, the Native American component at
31WL178/178** is also considered unassessed at the survey level of evaluation.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 55

Chapter 5. Summary and Recommendations
Summary
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of approximately 34 acres targeted for expansion of the Wilson County Sild Waste
Landfill. The Office of State Archaeology (OSA) identified two archaeological sites in the proposed
expansion area, 31 WL02/02** and 31 WL178/178**, and recommended a systematic archaeological survey
be conducted to define and evaluate these sites.
Both sites were revisited and systematic survey served to define their vertical and horizontal
boundaries. In addition, diagnostic artifacts from historic and prehistoric components were collected and
their intra-site artifact distributions were examined. Based on the results of this investigation, both sites
appear to have retained intact Native American deposits and site 31 WL178/178** contains deposits dating
to the earliest settlement of the project area. It is recommended that both sites be subjected to additional
work in order to definitively determine their National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility.
Should additional investigation be conducted at sites 31WL02/02** and 31WL178/178**, three
primary research topics should be explored:
Deep (sub-plowzone) archaeological deposits associated with Archaic occupations
Late Woodland (Tuscaroroa) settlement; and
Early Historic (18"' century) settlement in Wilson County
Deep (sub plowzone) Deposits
Based on the results of this investigation and those of Gardner's (1991) survey, Early, Middle and
Late Archaic components area present in the study area. Many shovel tests excavated during this survey
yielded artifacts from relatively deep sub-plowzone contexts. The Early Archaic PPK was recovered from
sub-plowzone contexts in a shovel test at 31 WL02/02**, strongly suggesting that such early deposits remain
intact. Although uncommon, Moore and Daniel (2011) have identified stratified Archaic deposits along the
Tar River by conducting geoarchaeological investigations and sites 31 WL02/02* * and 31 WL 178/ 178** may
be able to contribute to that body of data. The Archaic deposits can potentially provide data on Archaic lithic
procurement, utilization, and discard patterns (Lawrence et al., 2011). Further field work at these sites
should include geomorphological analyses and test unit excavations to obtain better artifact samples and to
assess stratigraphic contexts. To this end, in test units the plowzone should be removed as a single level and
subsequent levels should be excavated in 10 centimeter increments.
Late Woodland Settlement
Beaman (2010) states that scattered distribution of archaeological sites with Cashie pottery fragments
along upper Contentnea Creek and Toisnot Creek may represent the Tuscarora community of Tosneoc.
Thomas Beaman (2010) has presented an excellent discussion of the search for Tosneoc (Toisnot). The
Tuscarora community of Tosneoc was mentioned by John Lawson in 1701, but he did not visit the village
and there is no specific information about it's location (Beaman 2010). While there is no doubt that the
prof ect area is within the former territory of the Tuscarora, the location of Tosneoc is not given in any known
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 56

historic documents, and it is assumed that it was located along Toisnot Creek. Beaman (2010) notes that in
the Iroquoian language, "tosneoc" means "next to two rivers." The location near the confluence of Buck
Branch and Toisnot Creek is considered a possible location for this village. Beaman (2010) notes that a local
collector thought that the project area was the location of Tosneoc, and this was given some weight when
Cashie ceramics were identified in the artifact collection made by Gardner (1991) at 31WL178/178* * .
However, there are reasons to question whether or not the project area is associated with Tosneoc.
First, Tosneoc is a Contact Period site mentioned by John Lawson in 1701. By this time the Tuscarora were
trading partners with the Europeans. Their role in the deer skin trade would have provided ample opportunity
to acquire European manufactured items. However, no European items dating to the early eighteenth century
were found during our survey. Although this could be the result of our sampling strategy. Secondly, the
prof ect tract's location is not consistent with the general location description if Tosneoc means "between two
rivers." While Toisnot Creek is a sizeable tributary of Contentnea Creek, Buck Branch is a minor tributary
of Toisnot Creek. A good candidate for a location "between two rivers" would be at the confluence of
Toisnot Creek and Contentnea Creek, or perhaps at the confluence of Toisnot Creek and White Oak Swamp.
Figure 5.1 shows the distribution of Cashie ceramics in the study tract. Eighteen shovel tests
distributed across 31WL02/02** and 31WL178/178** yielded Cashie sherds. These sherds are probably
not the remains of one or two pots broken into many pieces and widely scattered through plowing and other
processes. It is more likely that these scattered sherds represent artifacts associated with different and
discrete activity areas. Thus the "community" concept may be appropriate when addressing the Tuscarora
occupation in the project tract. However, the different activity areas may not have been occupied
simultaneously but sequentially over a long period of time. More in-depth work at the sites may serve to
clarify the potential for addressing this issue.
Additional archaeological evaluation of 31 WL02/02 * * and 31 WL 178/ 178 * * would help to determine
if the Late Woodland ceramics at these sites are from the Contact or Pre -Contact time periods. Furthermore,
both of these sites have similarities to the Contentnea Creek Site (31WL37), which is also in Wilson County.
Intact cultural features, including human burials, were identified at 31 WL37 (Millis 2009), suggesting that
caution should be exercised at such sites until the potential for intact features is fully explored. Further work
at these sites should include metal detecting to see if a significant Post Contact component is present,
excavation of test units to obtain better artifact samples, and machine scraping to expose possible cultural
features.
Early Historic Settlement in Wilson County
In 1741, John Thomas became the first European settler in the area when he bought 300 acres near
the confluence of Toisnot Creek and White Oak Swamp (Valentine 2002). Soon after, in 1756, Toisnot
Primitive Baptist Church was established along Toisnot Creek. However, the area remained sparsely settled
until the Wilmington and Raleigh Railroad passed through the region in the late 1830s. Historic artifacts
collected at 31WL178/178** have manufacturing ranges may date to the time of this European settlement
expansion in the region. Very little is known about the early historic settlement. Additional evaluation of
31WL178/178** is need to determine if intact archaeological contexts are present which can help provide
information about the period of transition from Tuscarora to European control of the region. It is
recommended that metal detection be conducted to obtain a better artifact sample and further explore artifact
distributions and that machine scraping be conducted to expose possible cultural features.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 57

C3
! 08 109 110 111 - —11
* 03 .l 04 5 147"
97 98 r9
93 94 95 96 1n-
87 83 ' $4 4 9
:x D:
hr - 54 65
0` 62 53
X • f f 0 J..
75
* ti
'68 89 70 71 72 73. :, Ir
z i . :.E2 .• 63 * 63 6c �67
.Y
f 6 • 057 • '_, f59 • � 60 ` ' "► �
55 z }
51 52 57 54
d1 42 43 45-46 47
f 35 37 449 .2t .._: 48: 45 -
i .• .. 32 33�,�3,{d.
27
28 29 30' -
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
s
24 25
• • -. r s
22
Q Project Boundary
Cashie Ceramics
s iA
9 26 21
76 7 : 23
New Archaeologkal Site
0 Nat Present
♦ a
..12. '3
-1 -� 1
positive ST
Present
- :c 7
9 10
4 Negative S7
2 3
N4 ❑I
U 30
80 90 120
�P
Meters
Figure 5.1. Map showing the distribution of Cashie pottery fragments in the project area.
-ACC,�nc.-- Filson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
58

Recommendations
At the survey level of evaluation, it was determined that potentially significant archaeological
deposits from the Archaic, Woodland, and Historic periods may be present at 31WL02/02** and
31 WL178/178**. No land -disturbing activities should be conducted within the defined archaeological site
boundaries prior to both sites being further evaluated. At this time, preservation in place is being considered
as an option. Areas outside the site boundaries do not contain sensitive archaeological deposits, and should
be available for use for expansion of the solid waste site. However, to ensure that the archaeological sites
are not inadvertently impacted, some type of physical markers (e.g., fencing or some type of visible markers)
should distinguish the site boundaries.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 59

References Cited
Abbott, Lawrence E. Jr., Kathleen M. Ferrell, John G. Nickerson, and Norma K. Gay
2011 Lithic Resources ofthe North Carolina Coastal Plain: Prehistoric Acquisition and Utilization
Patterns. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia. Edited by
Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R.P. Stephen Davis. North Carolina Archaeological
Council Publication No. 30.
Adovasio, J. M. and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit ofArchaeology's Greatest Mystery. Random House, New
York.
Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist
19:317-41.
Algonkian Indians of North Carolina, Inc.
2004 Roanoake-Hatteras Tribal History. Electronic Document, http://www.ncalgonquians.com.
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon -Harper
2016 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual:
Ceramics. Electronic document, http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/
Ceramics.pdf, accessed 15 November 2017.
Bache, A. D.
1865 U.S. Coast Survey of North Carolina and South Carolina map.
Barbour, Terry E.
2015 Reconstructing the Culture History of the Multicomponent Site Squires Ridge (31ED365)
Within the Northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina. MA Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
Beaman, Thomas
2010 "Next to Two Rivers": The Wilson County Sesquicentennial Survey to Locate the Late
Woodland and Protohistoric Tuscarora Community of Tosneoc, in North Carolina Archaeology
Volume 59(113-140).
Billings, D. B.
1988 Geotechnical Evaluation for Planning, Project Characterization and Environmental
Assessment. Ms on file, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 60

Black, A. and D. Black
1989 Historic and Architectural Resources of Kinston, North Carolina. National Register of
Historic Places Multiple Property Nomination Form. Ms. On file, North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Raleigh.
Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper (editors)
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Brady, Ellen M. and Loretta Lautzenheiser
1999 Archaeological Testing of Sites 31PM38 and 31PM42, Pamlico County, North Carolina.
Coastal Carolina Research, Tarboro, NC.
Brooks, M.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, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 91-100.
University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological
Studies 9. Columbia.
Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principal Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics forldentification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series.
Byrd, John E.
1997 Tuscarora Subsistence Practices in the Late Woodland Period: The Zooarchaeology of the
Jordan's Landing Site. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 27.
Byrd, John E. and Charles L. Heath
1997 The Rediscovery of the Tuscaroran Homeland: A Final Report of the Archaeological Survey
ofthe Contentnea CreekDrainage 1995-1997. David S. Phelps Archaeological Laboratory. East
Carolina University, Greenville.
Carrington, Henry B.
1974 Battle Maps and Charts of the American Revolution. Arno Press, New York.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 54(5). Philadelphia, PA
Colquhoun, Donald R., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. Abbott, Frank W. Stapor, Walter H.
Newman, and Richard R. Pardi
1981 Location of archeological sites with respect to sea level in the Southeastern United States.
In Striae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14, edited by L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo, pp.
144-150.
Corbitt, David Leroy
2000 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties 1663-1943. North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
`' ' 61

Crawford, Robert Guy Hodges
1966 An Archaeological Survey of Lenoir County, North Carolina. M.A. thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville
Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History ofthe Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent Cumberland
Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.
Delcourt, Hazel R., and Paul A. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United States. In
Pollen Records ofLate-Quaternary North American Sediments, edited by V. M. Bryant, Jr., and
R. G. Holloway. American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologists Foundation.
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 400,000 B.P. to Present. In Geobotancy 11,
edited by R.C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corporation.
1987 Late Quaternary Dynamics of Temperate Forests: Applications of Paleoecology to Issues
of Global Environmental Change. Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 6, No. 2.
Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Volume 1: The Archaeological
Context and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Driver, J.C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada, 11,000 to
9,000 FP. Quaternary International 49:141-150.
Egloff, Keith T.
1985 Spheres of Cultural Interaction across the Coastal Plain of Virginia in the Woodland Period.
In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., and H.
Trawick Ward, pp 229-242. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Feldhues, William J.
1995 Guide to Identifying and Dating Historic Glass and Ceramics. Manuscript on file,
Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection.
histarch/gallery_types/.
Electronic document, http://www.flnmh.ufl.edu/
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Catholic University ofAmerica, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper No.1. Washington,
D.C.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 62

Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael
R. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of Eastern United
States, edited by J. B. Griffin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hagg, William G.
1958 The Archaeology of Coastal North Carolina. Coastal Studies Series 2. Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA.
Heath, Charles L. And E. Clay Swindell
2011 Coastal Plain Iroquoians Before and After Contact: An Interpretive Study of Cashie Phase
Archaeological Research in Northeastern North Carolina. In The Archaeology of North
Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, edited by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and
R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pages 10-1 through 10-104. North Carolina Archaeological Council
Publication Number 30.
Herbert, Joseph
2011 Recent Woodland Archaeology in Coastal North Carolina. In The Archaeology of North
Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, edited by Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and
R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pages. 4-1 through 4-58. North Carolina Archaeological Council
Publication Number 30.
Husketh, S. J.
1921 Natural Resources of Pitt. In Pitt County, Economic and Social, edited by S. O.
Worthington. Greenville Publishing Company, Greenville, NC.
Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E.C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C 1 Dating ofthe Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125:73-
94.
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Addditonal Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description ofNorthern Virginia Chapters
—ASV's 1993 and 1995 Excavations. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus
Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, edited by J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, Appendix G.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.
Karnowski, Edwin, J. B. Newman, James Dunn, and J. A. Meadows
1974 Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 63

King, Henry T.
1911 Sketches of Pitt County, A Brief History of the County, 1704-1910. Edwards and Broughton
Printing Company, Raleigh, NC.
Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.
Lawson, John
1709 A New Voyage to Carolina. http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/lawson/lawso60.jpg.
Lindsey, Bill
2016 Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website." Electronic Document,
https:Hsha.org/bottle/index.htm.
Loftfield, Thomas C.
1976 A Brief and True Report...: An Archaeological Interpretation ofthe Southern North Carolina
Coast. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI..
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp.257-314. Academic Press, New York.
Marcel, Sarah Elizabeth
1994 Buttoning Down the Past: A Look at Buttons as Indicators of Chronology and Material
Culture." University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Mattson, Richard L. and Frances P. Alexander
1994 Ayden Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form.
McAvoy, J. M. And L. D. McAvoy, editors
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.
McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Speical
Attention to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1-59. Contributions from the
Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2:1-53.
Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincause, C.V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nunez, and
D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity
44(1):172-179.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 64

Miller, George L., Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew D. Madsen.
1997 "Telling Time for Archaeologists." Northeast Historical Archaeology Volume 29, no. 1
(2000): Pp 1-22.
Millis, Heather
2009 Data Recovery Excavations at the Contentnea Creek Site (31 WL37), Wilson County.
Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. Prepared by TRC
Environmental Corporation, Chapel Hill, NC
Mintz, John J.
2011 ..They in Respect of Troubling our Inhabiting and Planting, Are Not to be Feared:"
Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Coastal Populations Before and After European
Contact. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia, edited by
Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., pp. 8-1-8-9. North Carolina
Archaeological Council Publication Number 30.
Moore, Christopher R. And I. Randolph Daniel
2011 Geoarchaeological Investigations of Stratified Sand Ridges Along the Tar River, North
Carolina. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia. Edited by
Charles R. Ewen, Thomas R. Whyte, and R.P. Stephen Davis. North Carolina Archaeological
Council Publication No. 30.
National Park Service (NPS)
2015 The American Battlefield Protection Program: Battle Summaries: Tranter's Creek.
Electronic Document, http://www.nps.gov/abpp/battles/nc006.htm, accessed 2 June 2015.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
2015 Pitt County. Electronic Document, http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/codata/pitt.pdf, accessed 3
June 2015.
Oliver, Billy
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, University, AL.
O'Steen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, editors. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Phelps, David Sutton
1964 The Final Phases of the Eastern Archaic. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Tulane University, LA.
1981 The Archaeology of Colington Island. East Carolina University Archaeology Research
Report 3, Greenville, NC.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 65

David Sutton Phelps continued
1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In
The Prehistory of North Carolina, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Phelps, David S., and Charles L. Heath.
1998 Cashie Series Ceramics From The Interior Coastal Plain of North Carolina, Circa AD 800-
1725." East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Piehl, C.
1979 White Society in the Black Belt, 1870-1920, A Study of Four North Carolina Counties.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University.
Pitt County Development Commission (PCDC)
2015a Geography and Climate. Electronic Document,
http://locateincarolina.com/geography-climate/.
Pitt County Development Commission (PCDC) continued
2015b Major Employers. Electronic Document, http://locateincarolina.com/major-employers/.
Plummer, Gayther L.
1975 Eighteenth Century Forests in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science
33:1-19.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh.
Quarterman, Elsie and Katherine Keever
1962 Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecological
Monographs 32:167-185.
Rights, Douglas L.
1957 The American Indian in North Carolina. John F Blair, Winston-Salem, NC.
Samford, Patricia
2014 Marbles. Electronic document. Diagnositc Artifacts in Maryland.
https: //www. j efpat. org/diagnostic/SmallFinds/Marbles/index-marbles.html.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sheehan, Mark C., Donald R. Whitehead, and Stephen T. Jackson
1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.
Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.
Sheldon, Elizabeth S.
1983 Vegetational History of the Wallace Reservoir. Early Georgia 11(1-2):19-31.
_Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 66

Sink, Larry T.
1983 Soil Survey of Wilson County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Smith, Bruce D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to de Soto, 10,500-500 BP.
In Advances in World Archaeology, Volume 5, edited by F. Wendorf and A. Close. Academic
Press, Orlando, FL.
South, Stanley
1959 A Study of the Prehistory of the Roanoke Rapids Basin. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Stanford, Dennis, Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, and D. Gentry Steele
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and
Michael R. Waters, pp. 313-353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Trotter, W.
1989 Ironclads and Columbiads. Signal Research, Greensboro, NC.
United States Census Bureau
2015 Pitt County, North Carolina. Electronic Document.
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37147.html.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2015 Web Soil Survey. Electronic Document, http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/.
United States Geological Service (USGS)
1982 Ayden, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
Ward, H. Trawick
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 353-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, H. Trawick and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History, The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 67

Watson, Alan
1979 Edgecombe County, A Brief History. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Wilson, Richa, and Kathleen Snodgrass
2008 Early 20th-Century Building Materials: Siding and Roofing. Facilities Tech Tips United
States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Technology and Development Program.
Electronic document, https://www.fs.fed.us/t-
d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf08732308/pdf08732308dpi72.pdf.
York, D. H.
1992 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the Tull -Worth -Holland Farm.
Ms. On file, North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
-Anc�„' Wilson County Solid Waste Tract
Wilson County, North Carolina
Y' 68

Appendix A.
Artifact Catalog and Projectile Point Report
Provenience Techniques
Each location from which artifacts were recovered was assigned a unique provenience number. Numbers after
the decimal place designate a surface collection (e.g., 0), a general subsurface collection (e.g., 1), or a specific level
below surface (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.)

Artifact Catalog
Wilson Countv Waste Sites
Site Number 31WL02/02** Rev
Provenience Number:
1.1
Revisit, N170 E425, 0-15 cm, Strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl
1
2.9
Residual Sherd
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant (E/M
WDLD), eroded, possible cord
marked?,
Provenience
Number:
2.1
Revisit, N185
E410, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p2
1
2.9
Residual Sherd
Possible Mount Pleasant (M WDLD),
vcst, fabric impressed
2
m3
1
2.5
Metavolcanic Shatter Banded
with cortex, weathered
3
m4
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
crystal quartz
Provenience
Number:
3.1
Revisit, N185
E425, 0-50 cm, Strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p5
1
3.9
CoarseNC Sand Temper Deep Cr/Mt P Fabric
loose weave
Impressed Body Sherd
Provenience
Number:
4.1
Revisit, N185
E440, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p6
1
3.2
Residual Sherd
cord marked, CST, Deep Creek/Mount
Pleasant?
2
m7
4
3.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 weathered
3
m8
2
4.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
5.1
Revisit, N185
E455, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p9
1
4.4
Coarse Sand Temper Deep Cr/Mt P Fabric
(E/M WDLD), tight weave
Impressed Body Sherd
2
p10
2
5.1
Residual Sherd
1-eroded with Est with coarse
inclusions; 1 eroded plain with CST,
oxidized; 2-UID type
3
ml l
3
4.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
1 with cortex -secondary flake
4
m12
1
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
6.1
Revisit, N200
E350, TR2 ST4, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m13
1
0.7
Metal Fastener Copper Alloy
possible rivet fragment?
Provenience
Number:
7.1
Revisit, N200
E380, TR2 ST3, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m14
1
1.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Porphyritic Rhyolite
Provenience
Number:
8.2
Revisit, N200
E410, TR2 ST2, 40-55 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m15
2
1.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 weathered
2
m16
1
9.6
Quartzite Fire Cracked Rock With Cortex
heat treated, cobble fragment
3
b17
1
0.4
Bone UID Mammal
juvenile, unfused epiphysis from
phalanx, possible pig?
Page 1 of 18

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
9.1
Revisit, N200 E425, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m18
1
5.5
Quartz Shatter
Provenience
Number:
10.1
Revisit, N200
E440, TR2 STl, 0-40 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p19
2
1.7
Residual Sherd
2 UID type, 1-very small and eroded,
mst; 1-fabric impressed? cord marked?,
VCST, crushed quartz
2
m20
11
8.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m21
2
0.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m22
1
1
Quartz Shatter
5
m23
1
0.6
Unidentified Material Rock
jasper?, cultural?
Provenience
Number:
11.1
Revisit, N215
E395, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m24
1
1.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m25
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
12.1
Revisit, N215
E410, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p26
1
1.8
Residual Sherd
Possible Cashie (LWDLD), fabric
impressed, CST with VCS inclusions
2
m27
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m28
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex
Provenience
Number:
13.1
Revisit, N215
E440, 0-40 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p29
1
1.1
Residual Sherd
eroded, m/cst, possible Deep
Creek/Mount Pleasant (E/M Woodland)
2
m30
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
14.1
Revisit, N230
E380, TR3 ST3, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m31
1
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m32
1
0.1
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
15.1
Revisit, N230
E410, TR3 ST2, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p33
1
1.1
Residual Sherd
Deep Creek/ Mount Pleasant (E/M
WDLD), fabric impressed, VCST
2
m34
3
3.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic, 2 weathered
Porphyritic Rhyolite
3
m35
1
1.8
Quartz Shatter
Provenience
Number:
15.2
Revisit, N230
E410, TR3 ST2, 30-60 cm, zone H
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m36
8
3.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 porphyritic; 4 weathered
Porphyritic Rhyolite
2
m37
3
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 crystal quartz
3
m38
1
0.3
Quartz Shatter
Page 2 of 18

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
16.1
Revisit, N230 E425, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m39
1
2
Quartz Shatter With Cortex
with terrestrial cortex
Provenience
Number:
16.2
Revisit, N230
E425, 25+, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m40
2
1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m41
1
11.8
Quartz Flake Tool
unifacial flaking on 1 edge
3
m42
3
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 weathered, possibly porphyritic?
4
m43
1
0.6
Unidentified Material Flake/Flake Fragment
cultural?, conglomerate?
Provenience
Number:
17.1
Revisit, N230
E440, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m44
7
11
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3 weathered, 1 greenstone-like
2
m45
1
0.7
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex
3
m46
4
0.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 crystal quartz
4
m47
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Rock
metavolcanic? Cultural?
Provenience
Number:
18.1
Revisit, N230
E455, 0-60 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p48
5
4.2
Residual Sherd
5-UID type; 4 uid decoration, likely
fabric impressed, 1 fabric impressed; 5
M/CST
2
m49
9
3.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 possibly banded, 2 weathered
3
m50
2
0.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m51
1
0
possible egg shell fragment or modern
material?, weights <0.1g
Provenience
Number:
19.1
Revisit, N245
E395, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m52
1
0.1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m53
0
2.2
Brick Fragment
3
m54
1
0.3
Slate Fragment
4
m55
2
0.3
Plastic
1 red with uid embossing, milky color
5
m56
4
0.9
Other Historic
asphalt roofing shingle fragments
Provenience
Number:
20.2
Revisit, N245
E410, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m57
1
0.5
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
cobble cortex, primary flake
2
m58
1
0
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weights <0.1g
Provenience
Number:
21.1
Revisit, N245
E425, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p59
1
1.8
Residual Sherd
UID type; UID Decoration; MST;
micaceous
2
m60
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m61
3
2.1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m62
1
7.8
Metavolcanic Core Porphyritic Rhyolite
5
m63
1
16.6
Quartzite Flake Tool
unifacial flaking and possible use wear
on ledge
6
m64
1
4.8
Quartz Shatter
Page 3 of 18

Artifact Catalog
7 m65 1 0.2 Plastic blue plastic fragment
Provenience Number:
22.1
Revisit, N245 E440, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m66
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m67
1
0.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
cobble cortex, primary flake
3
m68
1
14.6
Quartz Shatter
cultural?
4
m69
1
0.4
Clear Bottle Glass
Provenience
Number:
22.2
Revisit, N245
E440, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p70
1
3.1
CoarseNC Sand Temper Cashie Simple
interior surface fragmented
Stamped Body Sherd
2
m71
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m72
1
0.2
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m73
2
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
23.1
Revisit, N245
N455, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p74
1
3.4
Medium/Coarse Sand Temper Mount Pleasant
Possible Mount Pleasant (M WDLD),
UID Decoration Body Sherd
cord? Fabric?, possible grog inclusions
2
a75
1
2.5
Quartz Biface Fragment
2 bifacial edges
3
p76
2
1.2
Residual Sherd
2 UID type, 2 MST, and eroded
4
m77
3
3.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 crystal quartz
5
m78
4
3.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff 1 Felsic Tuff, 2 weathered
6
m79
1
0.1
Plastic
thin, black on 1 side, white on 1 side
Provenience
Number:
23.2
Revisit, N245
N455, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m80
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m81
2
1.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 weathered
Provenience
Number:
24.4
Revisit, N260
E425, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m82
2
5.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
25.1
Revisit, N260
E455, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m83
3
2.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff 2 felsic tuff?, 1 weathered
Provenience
Number:
26.1
Revisit, N260
E470, 10-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m84
2
2.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m85
1
0.7
Quartz Shatter
3
m86
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
27.1
Revisit, N275
E380, 10-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m87
2
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
1 with cobble cortex -primary flake
Provenience
Number:
28.1
Revisit, N275
E410, 10-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 4 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
m88
1
1.8
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
29.1
Revisit, N275
E440, 15-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m89
1
2.7
Unidentified Material Flake Tool
dark color, possible bifacial retouch on
1 edge, unifacial usewear on 1 edge;
rhyolite? Chert? Gunflint?
Provenience
Number:
30.1
Revisit, N275
N455, 10-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m90
1
1.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
31.1
Revisit, N290
E350, TR5 ST5, 15-30cm, base zone 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p91
1
2.4
Residual Sherd
Possible Cashie (L WDLD), simple
stamped, VCS with granular inclusions
2
m92
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
32.1
Revisit, N290
E410, TR5 ST3, 15-30cm, base zone 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p93
1
0.8
Residual Sherd
UID type, eroded, M/CST, very small
2
m94
3
1.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m95
1
2
Quartz Shatter
Provenience
Number:
33.1
Revisit, N290,
E440, TR5 ST2, 0-10 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p96
1
1.2
Residual Sherd
Possible Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant
(E/M WDLD); fabric impressed, CST
with VCS inclusions
Provenience
Number:
34.2
Revisit, N290
E455, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m97
1
1.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic
Tuff felsic tuff?, weathered
Provenience
Number:
35.1
Revisit, N290
E470, TR5 STl, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p98
1
1.4
Residual Sherd
possible Cashie (L WDLD), CST, UID
decoration, possible fabric impressed?
2
m99
1
2.6
Quartz Shatter With Cortex
with cobble cortex
3
m100
1
0.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
cultural?
4
m101
3
2.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff 2 felsic tuff? and weathered
5
m102
1
0.1
Clear Bottle Glass
Provenience
Number:
36.1
Revisit, N305
E320, 15-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m103
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
37.1
Revisit, N305
E350, 10-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m104
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
38.1
Revisit, N305
E365, 10-45 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 5 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
m 105
1
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff
felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
39.1
Revisit, N305
E395, 10-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m106
2
12.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 large and bulky
2
m107
1
0.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
3
m108
1
0.5
Slate
cultural?
Provenience
Number:
40.1
Revisit, N305
E470
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m109
1
2.6
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex, secondary flake
2
m110
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
41.1
Revisit, N320
E320, TR6 ST7, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl l l
1
1.8
Residual Sherd
UID type, UID decoration, fabric
impressed?, CST
Provenience
Number:
42.2
Revisit, N320
E335, 30-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 12
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
banded?, weathered, porphyritic
Provenience
Number:
43.1
Revisit, N320
E350, TR6 ST6, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 13
2
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff
1 felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
44.2
Revisit, N320
E365, 35-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 14
1
0.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
ml 15
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
45.2
Revisit, N320
E395, 35-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 16
1
0.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Felsic Tuff
felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
46.1
Revisit, N320
E410, TR6 ST4, 0-25 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml 17
2
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
1 banded, weathered and with possible
use wear
2
ml18
1
2.9
Concretion
sandstone?
Provenience
Number:
47.1
Revisit, N320
E425, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m119
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
48.1
Revisit, N320
E440 TR6 ST3, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m120
1
2.8
Concretion
sandstone?
Provenience
Number:
49.1
Revisit, N320
E470, TR6 ST2, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl21
1
1.1
Residual Sherd
UID type, VCST, UID decoration
2
m122
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
Page 6 of 18

Artifact Catalog
3
m123
0
4
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
50.2
Revisit, N335
E290, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p124
2
3.7
Residual Sherd
1- Possible Cashie (L WDLD), VCST,
plain; 1-UID type, VCST, eroded
Provenience
Number:
51.2
Revisit, N335
E320, 35-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m125
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
52.2
Revisit, N335
E425, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m126
3
13.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3 weathered, 2 possible felsic tuff, 1
large with possible use wear
Provenience
Number:
53.2
Revisit, N335
E440, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p127
1
0.4
Residual Sherd
UID type, UID decoration, MST, very
small
2
m128
1
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
54.1
Revisit, N335
E455, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m129
1
2.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
large, possible use wear on 1 edge
Provenience
Number:
54.2
Revisit, N335
E455, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m130
1
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
55.2
Revisit, N350
E455, 30-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml31
1
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
56.2
Revisit, N365
E290, 20 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m132
1
138.6
Metal Cookware Iron
possible cast iron stove grate handle,
trivet leg, or cast iron cookware handle
or leg
Provenience
Number:
57.1
Revisit, N365
E320, 0-20 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p133
1
2.2
Residual Sherd
Possible Cashie (L WDLD), simple
stamped, overstamped, VCST with
granular inclusions
2
m134
1
0.7
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
57.2
Revisit, N365
E320, 20-60 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m135
2
2.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
1-porphoritic, 1 with cortex
Cortex
Provenience
Number:
58.1
Revisit, N365
E380, 0-30 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 7 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
m136
1
3.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Porphyritic Rhyolite
Provenience
Number:
59.1
Revisit, N365
E455, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m137
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
60.1
Revisit, N365
E485, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p138
1
0.2
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded
2
m139
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
60.2
Revisit, N365
E485, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m140
1
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
small bit of cobble cortex
Provenience
Number:
61.2
Revisit, N365
E500, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl41
2
1.1
Residual Sherd
2 UID type; 1-very small and eroded
with CST; 1 fabric impressed, with
MST, very small
2
m142
2
4.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
62.1
Revisit, N380
E350, TR8 ST7, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p143
2
1.3
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded
2
m144
1
2.3
Quartz Shatter
3
m145
3
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic and weathered
Provenience
Number:
63.1
Revisit, N380
E380, TR8 ST6, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m146
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
64.1
Revisit, N380
E500, TR8 ST2, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m147
2
0.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 cultural?
2
m148
2
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
3
m149
1
1.2
Metavolcanic Biface Fragment
bifacial pressure flaking on 1 edge,
porphyritic
Provenience Number:
65.1
Revisit, N380 E515, 0-20 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
m150
2
0.4 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
ml51
1
0.2 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
66.1
Revisit, N380 E530, TR8 STl, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
p152
5
4 Residual Sherd
5 UID type; 1 UID decoration and
C/VCST; 4 very small and eroded
Provenience
Number:
67.1
Revisit, N380 E545, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g) Description
Comments
1
m153
2
0.3 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
1 with small bit of cobble cortex
Page 8 of 18

Artifact Catalog
2
m154
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
Provenience
Number:
68.2
Revisit, N395
E335, 20-30 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
111
m155
1
0.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
porphyritic
Provenience
Number:
69.1
Revisit, N395
E350, 0-15 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m156
4
1.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
porphyritic, 1 with cortex
Cortex
Provenience
Number:
70.2
Revisit, N395
E365, 20-60 ern
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m157
1
1.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex, possible unifacial
use wear on 1 edge
2
m158
2
50.4
Metavolcanic Rock
1 heat treated?, cultural??
Provenience
Number:
71.2
Revisit, N395
E515, 20-40 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m159
1
1.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
72.2
Revisit, N395
E530, 20-40 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m160
2
6.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 with possible use wear
Provenience
Number:
73.1
Revisit, N395
E545, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl61
1
0.4
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small, plain? Eroded,
FST
Provenience Number:
74.1
Revisit, N410 E290, TR9 ST8, 0-10 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m162
1
0.7
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
2
m163
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
cultural??
Provenience
Number:
75.1
Revisit, N410
N515, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p164
2
3.7
Residual Sherd
2 possible Mount Pleasant (M WDLD),
1 plain with C/VCST, 1 fabric
impressed? With C/VCST
2
m165
2
1.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
76.1
Revisit, N425
E500, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m166
1
5.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
77.1
Revisit, N425
E515, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p167
4
6.3
Residual Sherd
1-possible Cashie (L WDLD), cord
marked? Simple stamped?,
overstamped with CST with granular
inclusions; 1-UID type fabric
impressed with VCST; 1 possible
Cashie, eroded with VCST; 1 UID
decoration with CST
Page 9 of 18

Artifact Catalog
2
m168
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m169
3
2.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3 weathered, 1 with possible use wear
4
p170
1
5
Albany Slipped Stoneware Ceramic
body
Provenience
Number:
78.1
Revisit, N425
E545, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
pl71
1
1.2
Residual Sherd
possible Cashie (L WDLD), UID
decoration -cord marked?, fabric
impressed?; MST
2
m172
1
0.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
79.1
Revisit, N440
E350, TR10 ST7, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m173
5
3.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 felsic tuff?, 3 weathered
2
m174
1
2.9
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
quartzite?
Provenience
Number:
80.1
Revisit, N440
E500, TR10 ST3, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m175
1
1.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
small bit of cobble cortex
Provenience
Number:
81.1
Revisit, N440
E515, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m176
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
81.2
Revisit, N440
E515, 20-45 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m177
1
9.1
Metavolcanic Utilized Flake Banded
use wear on 1 edge
2
m178
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
felsic tuff?
3
m179
2
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
82.1
Revisit ,N440
E545, 15-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m180
1
0.1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m181
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
83.1
Revisit, N440
E560, TR10 STI, 0-10 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m182
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
84.1
Revisit, N455
E485, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m183
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
felsic tuff?, weathered
Provenience
Number:
84.2
Revisit, N455
E485, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p184
1
0.5
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded,
CNCST
2
m185
1
5.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m186
1
0
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weights <0.1g
Provenience
Number:
85.2
Revisit, N455
E500, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m187
1
0.6
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded, CST
Page 10 of 18

Artifact Catalog
2
m188
1
19.8
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
large
Provenience
Number:
86.1
Revisit, N455
E530, 0-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p189
2
5.2
Residual Sherd
2 possible Cashie (L WDLD), 1 fabric
impressed? with scraped interior and
CST; 1 UID decoration with VCST
2
m190
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m191
1
1.1
Light Green Flat Glass
window glass
Provenience
Number:
87.2
Revisit, N470
E485, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m192
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m193
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
3
m194
1
0.3
Light Green Bottle Glass
Provenience
Number:
88.1
Revisit, N470
E500, TR11 ST3, 0-40 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p195
2
1
Residual Sherd
2 UID type, 2 very small and eroded, 1
MST, 1 CST
2
m196
4
1.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 felsic tuff?; 1 weathered; 2
porphyritic
3
m197
1
4.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
heat treated, possible use wear
4
m198
1
1.6
Quartz Fire Cracked Rock With Cortex
cobble fragment
5
m199
1
0.7
Clear Bottle Glass
Provenience
Number:
89.1
Revisit, N470
E515, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p200
1
2.3
VCS/Granular Temper Cashie UID Decoration possible Cashie (L WDLD), Fabric
Body Sherd
impressed?
2
p201
1
2.5
Residual Sherd
Deep Creek/ Mount Pleasant (E/M
WDLD), eroded, VCST
3
m202
1
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
cultural?
Provenience Number:
89.2 Revisit, N470 E515, 30-70 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity Weight (g)
Description Comments
1
p203
2 3.7
Very Coarse Sand Temper Mount Pleasant 2 possible Mount Pleasant, 2 mend
Plain Body Sherd
2
m204
4 1.8
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment 2 mend
3
m205
1 0.2
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience Number: 90.1 Revisit, N470 E530, TR11 ST2, 0-40 cm, plowzone
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 p206 3 4.2 Residual Sherd
2 m207 5
6.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
Cortex
3 m208 4
1.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
4 m209 1
3.5
Light Green Flat Glass
5 m210 1
4
Concretion Rock
Page 11 of 18
Comments
1 UID type, simple stamped with
M/CST and granular inclu.; 1 possible
Cashie (L WDLD), eroded with
VC/granular sand temper; 1 UID type,
eroded with CST
1 with cortex, 3 weathered, 1 felsic
tuff?
1 primary flake with cobble cortex
window glass
sandstone

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
91.1
Revisit, N470 E545, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p2l l
1
2.7
Residual Sherd
possible Cashie (L WDLD), fabric
impressed, VCST
2
m212
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m213
2
4.6
Quartz Shatter
4
m214
1
29.1
Unidentified Material Groundstone With
2 flat surfaces, possible metate
Cortex
fragment?
5
m215
0
0.4
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
92.1
Revisit, N470
E575, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m216
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
92.2
Revisit, N470
E575, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m217
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex
2
m218
1
4.5
Metal Unidentified Form Iron
Provenience
Number:
93.1
Revisit, N485
E500, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p219
1
0.7
Residual Sherd
1 UID type, UID Decoration, possible
fabric impressed?, M/CST
2
m220
3
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
94.1
Revisit, N485
E515, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m221
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m222
1
2
Plastic
white plastic fragment
Provenience
Number:
94.2
Revisit, N485
E515, 20-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p223
1
0.7
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded, UID
decoration, CST
2
m224
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
weathered
3
m225
1
0.7
Plastic
white plastic fragment
4
m226
1
0.1
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
95.1
Revisit, N485
E530, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m227
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m228
1
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
3
m229
0
1.9
Coal
4
m230
1
1.1
Clear Flat Glass
window glass
Provenience
Number:
96.1
Revisit, N485
E545, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m231
1
0.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
2
m232
1
0.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
97.2
Revisit, N500
E500, TR12 ST3, 15-35 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 12 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
p233
1
2.8
Residual Sherd
Possible Mount Pleasant (M WDLD),
UID Decoration, net impressed
2
m234
2
4.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
primary flake with cobble cortex, 2
mend
Provenience
Number:
97.3
Revisit, N500
E500, TR12 ST3, 35-55 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m235
7
1.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic, 6 weathered
Porphyritic Rhyolite
Provenience
Number:
98.1
Revisit, N500
E515, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p236
1
38.1
Unglazed Stoneware Ceramic
UID Form, flat exterior, interior has lip
and cone -shaped protrusion, utilitarian?
2
p237
1
0.4
Undecorated Ironstone Ceramic
body
3
a238
1
0.4
Button Metal
aluminum, 2-hole, 1 piece (post 1880s,
Marcel 1994)
4
m239
2
2.9
Clear Bottle Glass
body fragments
5
m240
8
7.4
Brown Bottle Glass
body fragments
6
m241
19.4
Brick Fragment
1 with coarse sand inclusions
7
m242
0
0
Coal
weights <0.1g
Provenience
Number:
99.2
Revisit, N500
E530, TR12 ST2, 30-60 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p243
1
2.3
Residual Sherd
Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant (E/M
WDLD), cord marked, VCST
2
m244
13
4.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
9 felsic tuff?, 3 weathered, 1 porphyritic
3
m245
1
16.8
Unidentified Material Rock
possible groundstone?
4
m246
1
1
Light Green Flat Glass
window glass
Provenience
Number:
100.1
Revisit, N500
E545 0-40 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m247
1
2.2
Nail Fragment Unidentified
2
m248
2
3.5
Brown Bottle Glass
body fragments
3
m249
1
1.8
Clear Bottle Glass
embossed with "-AW-/- RE-/-O-"
4
m250
1
2.2
Clear Flat Glass
likely window glass
Provenience
Number:
101.1
Revisit, N500
E560, TR12 STI, 0-15 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m251
1
1.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
102.1
Revisit, N500
E575, 0-40 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m252
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
felsic tuff.
2
m253
1
0.9
Milkglass Unidentified Glass
green painted exterior surface
Provenience
Number:
103.1
Revisit, N515
E500, 040 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
a254
1
4
Personal Item Marble
unglazed earthenware marble (common
by mid-1700s to 1930s, Samford 2014)
Provenience
Number:
104.1
Revisit, N515
E515, 0-40 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 13 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
m255
1
0.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m256
1
0
Clear Lamp Glass
weights <0.1 g, very thin
3
m257
1
0.8
Light Green Flat Glass
likely window glass
Provenience
Number:
105.2
Revisit, N515
E530, 10-45 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m258
1
1.6
Metavolcanic Utilized Flake
felsic tuft*?, use wear on 1 side of 1 edge
2
m259
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
3
m260
1
1
Clear Bottle Glass
body
Provenience
Number:
106.1
Revisit, N515
E545, 0-20 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m261
2
3.9
Clear Bottle Glass
1 body, 1 base with mold seam
Provenience
Number:
107.2
Revisit, N515
E560, 15-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
a262
1
9.5
Milky Quartz Projectile Point
Kirk/Pahner (Early Archaic), corner
notched, resharpened, ground base
2
m263
3
6.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
1 with cortex, 1 weathered with
Cortex
possible use wear
Provenience
Number:
108.1
Revisit, N530E470, TR13 ST4, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p264
1
1.5
Residual Sherd
Possible Cashie (L WDLD), simple
stamped, VCS/granular temper
2
m265
0
4.6
Mortar
3
m266
1
4.3
Sandstone Rock
cultural???
Provenience
Number:
108.2
Revisit, N530E470, TR13 ST4, 25-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m267
1
0
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weight <0.1g, felsic tuff?
Provenience
Number:
109.1
Revisit, N530E500, TR13 ST3, 0-15 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m268
1
2.4
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m269
2
1.9
Clear Flat Glass
window glass
3
m270
0
36.2
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
109.2
Revisit, N530
E500, TR13 ST3, 15-35 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m271
3
7.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 weathered
Provenience
Number:
110.1
Revisit, N530
E515, 0-20 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m272
2
1.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
1 cultural?
Cortex
2
m273
4
4.2
Light Green Flat Glass
likely window glass
3
m274
1
0.3
Clear Unidentified Glass
worn
4
m275
1
4.7
Light Green Bottle Glass
5
m276
0
13.1
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
110.2
Revisit, N530
E515, 20-50 cm, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
Page 14 of 18

Artifact Catalog
1
a277
1
2.1
Metavolcanic P. Point Fragment
tip fragment, weathered
2
m278
2
2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 weathered
3
m279
1
1.3
Quartzite Flake/Flake Fragment
4
m280
1
0.3
Clear Flat Glass
5
m281
0
1.7
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
111.2
Revisit, N530
E530, TR13 ST2, 30-45 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m282
1
1.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
112.1
Revisit, N530
E575, 0-20 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m283
1.4
Brick Fragment
Site Number 31WL178/178**
Provenience Number:
1.1
Revisit, N560 E440, TR14 ST5, 10-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml
1
2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
2.1
Revisit, N575
E395, 0-50 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m2
2
0.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
1 weathered and banded
2
m3
1
0.7
Brown Bottle Glass
rim with threaded finish (dominant
post 1930, (Lindsey 2017)
Provenience
Number:
3.1
Revisit, N575
E410, 0-30 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m4
1
0.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
4.1
Revisit, N575
E425, 0-30 cm, strat 1
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m5
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
2
m6
1
8.9
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3
m7
1
1
Brown Bottle Glass
base fragment with knurling (post
1940, Lindsey 2017)
Provenience
Number:
5.1
Revisit, N590
E350, TR15 ST7, 0-30 cm plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m8
1
0.2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
2
m9
1
17.8
Metal Hardware Iron
chain fragment, bike? Chainsaw?
Provenience
Number:
6.1
Revisit, N590
E365, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m10
1
0.9
Clear Bottle Glass
body
Provenience
Number:
7.2
Revisit, N590
E395, 30-45 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
ml l
1
1.1
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
8.2
Revisit, N590
E410, TR15 ST5, 35-60 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m12
1
2.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Page 15 of 18

Artifact Catalog
2
m13
1
0.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
9.1
Revisit, N590
E425, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m14
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
10.1
Revisit, N590
E440, TR15 ST4, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m15
1
84.7
Unidentified Material Rock
cultural??
Provenience
Number:
10.2
Revisit, N590
E440, TR15 ST4, 35-55 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p16
3
4.8
Residual Sherd
1-Possible Cashie (L WDLD), UID
decoration, fabric? cord?, CST; 2- UID
type, very small and eroded, CST?
2
m17
1
1.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
Cortex
Provenience
Number:
11.2
Revisit, N590
E470, TR15 ST3, 35-55 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m18
4
2.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
2 porphyritic, 1 weathered
Provenience
Number:
12.1
Revisit, N590
E500 TR15 ST2, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p19
2
2.3
Residual Sherd
2 UID type, 1 eroded and CST, 1
eroded and VCST
2
m20
1
0.4
Undecorated Creamware Ceramic
body, glaze partially chipped off both
sides
3
m21
0
1.2
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
12.2
Revisit, N590E500, TR15 ST2, 35-55 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m22
1
0.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with cobble cortex, primary flake
2
m23
3
2
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic
Provenience
Number:
13.1
Revisit, N590
E515, 0-30 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m24
0
0.9
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
14.1
Revisit, N590
E530, TR15 STl, 0-35 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m25
1
0.5
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
15.2
Revisit, N605
E350, 30-55 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m26
1
18.9
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment With
large, possible use wear
Cortex
Provenience
Number:
16.1
Revisit, N605
E440, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p27
1
3.4
VCS/Granular Temper Cashie Simple
overstamped
Stamped Body Sherd
2
m28
2
5.4
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
1 with possible use wear
3
m29
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
Page 16 of 18

Artifact Catalog
4
p30
1
3.2
Nottingham Stoneware Ceramic
roulette design, body
5
m31
1
1.6
Sandstone Rock
likely not cultural
Provenience
Number:
16.2
Revisit, N605
E440 30+ cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p32
1
0.4
Residual Sherd
UID type, very small and eroded,
VC/Granular sand temper
2
m33
1
0.6
Brown Bottle Glass
base? body?, very small
3
m34
0
0.7
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
17.1
Revisit, N605
E470, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m35
0
1.9
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
17.2
Revisit, N605
E470, 30 cm +, subplow
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m36
2
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
1 porphyritic
2
m37
0
0.3
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
18.1
Revisit, N605
E485, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m39
0
1
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
18.2
Revisit, N605
E485, 30-50 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m39
1
1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
19.1
Revisit, N605
E500, 0-30 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m40
1
0.7
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Provenience
Number:
20.1
Revisit, N620
E455, 0-35 cm, plowzone
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m41
2
1.3
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m42
1
12.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered, large and bulky
3
m43
0
10.9
Brick Fragment
Provenience
Number:
20.2
Revisit, N620
E455, 35-50 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m44
1
16.6
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
with terrestrial cortex
2
m45
1
0.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Provenience
Number:
21.1
Revisit, N620
E470, TR16 ST2, 0-10 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m46
1
2.1
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
weathered
2
m47
1
2.9
Metavolcanic Biface Fragment
bifacial pressure flaking on 1 edge,
weathered, possibly banded
Provenience
Number:
22.1
Revisit, N635
E440, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m48
1
0.3
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment
weathered
Page 17 of 18

Artifact Catalog
Provenience Number:
23.1
Revisit, N635 E455, 25-40 cm, top of zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m49
1
0.2
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
2
m50
1
1.6
Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment Banded
weathered, banded?
3
p51
1
0.8
Undecorated Pearlware Ceramic
base, glaze chipped off interior and
exterior
Provenience
Number:
24.1
Revisit, N650
E380, TR17 ST4, 35-65 cm, zone 2
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p52
1
3.2
Residual Sherd
possible Deep Creek/Mount Pleasant
(E/M WDLD), plain, VCST
Provenience
Number:
25.1
Revisit, N650
E410, TR17ST3, 0-35cm, trans pz/z H
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
m53
2
0.5
Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment With Cortex
2 with cobble cortex
2
p54
1
0.2
Lead Glazed Agateware Ceramic
body, glaze chipped off interior
Provenience
Number:
26.1
Revisit, N650
E440, TR17 ST2, 0-40 cm
Catalog
Specimen
Number
Number
Quantity
Weight (g)
Description
Comments
1
p55
1
2.5
Coarse Sand Temper UID Decoration Body
cord? Simple stamped?, possible Deep
Sherd
Creek/ Mount Pleasant?, possible
Cashie?
2 m56 1 1.4 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
3 m57 0 2.7 Brick Fragment
Provenience Number: 27.1 Revisit, N665 E440, 0-25 cm, plowzone
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 a58 1 1.1 Translucent Quartz Projectile Point
Provenience Number: 28.1 Revisit, N680 E440, TR18 ST1, 0-10 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description
1 p59 1 0.3 White Salt Glazed Undecorated Stoneware
Ceramic
Page 18 of 18
Comments
small triangular, 13.6 mm wide,
19.7mm long
Comments

Site Number
Provenience: Cat #
Point Classification
Temporal Affiliation
Lithic Material
General Measurements
Length
Width
Weight
Basal Attributes
Base Type
Ground?
Maximum Width
Width at Neck
Depth of Concavity
Blade Attributes
PPK Point Report
31WL02/02** Revisit
107.2 1
Kirk/Palmer
Early Archaic
Milky Quartz
38.9 mm
22 mm
9.5 g
Notched
Yes
21.4 mm
16.2 mm
0 mm
Symmetric?
Yes
Beveled?
Yes L
Serrated?
Yes
Maximum Length
25.3 mm
Maximum Width
22 mm
Maximum Thickness
10.9 mm
Comment Corner notched, base chipped, 1 side beveled
Site Number
Provenience: Cat #
Point Classification
Temporal Affiliation
Lithic Material
General Measurements
Length
Width
Weight
Basal Attributes
Base Type
Ground?
Maximum Width
Width at Neck
Depth of Concavity
Blade Attributes
Symmetric?
Beveled?
Serrated?
Maximum Length
Maximum Width
Maximum Thickness
Comment base chipped
31WL178/178** Revisit
27.1 1
Small Triangular
Late Woodland
Translucent Quartz
19.6 mm
13.6 mm
1.1 g
Stemless Triangular
No
13.6 mm
0 mm
0 mm
Yes
No
No
19.6 mm
13.6 mm
5 mm
Page 1 of 2

PPK Fragment Report
Site Number 31WL02/02** Revisit
Provenience: 110.2 1
Lithic Material Metavolcanic
General Measurements
Length 30.4 mm
Width 15.5 mm
Weight
2.1 g
Fracture Type
Perverse
Fragment Type
Body
Base Type
Unknown
Comments Tip fragment, weathered ' M '""'""'""r""'""'""'""'""'""'""'
Page 2 of 2

Appendix B.
Artifact Plates

r
Kirk/Palmer
Milky Quartz PPK, 107.2:1
Metavolcanic
PPK Fragment,
110.2:1
Quartz
Quartzite Flake Tool, 16.2:2
Quartz Biface
Fragment, 23.1:2
Metavolcanic
Biface Fragment,
64.1:3
Rhyolite Metavolcanic
Flake Tool, 29.1:1 Core, 21.1:4
Flake Tool, 21.1:5.
+ Quartz Flakes/ .�
Flake Fragments,
Quartzite FCR, 8.2:2 5.1:3 1•
Metavolcanic Flakes/
Flake Fragments, 90.1:2
Mf rr�ir 1 ? ; q y
1
Metavolcanic Flakes/
Flake Fragments, 23.1:5
Figure 1. A sample of lithic artifacts from site 31WL2/2** Revisit.
Page 1 of 4

Possible
Cashie
Simple Stamped Simple Stamped Fabric Impressed,
Body Sherd, Body Sherd, Body Sherd, 91.1:1
108.1:1 22.2:1
Mount
N' ��� Pleasant
UID Decorated Fabric Impressed Plain Body Sherds
Body Sherd, 23.1:1 Body Sherd, 2.1:1 (2 Mend), 89.2:1
Fabric Deep Creek/
Impressed Mount Pleasant
:~ Body Sherd,
3.1:1 Ord Marked
Fabric Impressed'�ET�'ch IIiIIN2 a Body Sherd,
-
Body Sherd, 5.1:1 y
4.1:1
Figure 2. A sample of prehistoric ceramics from site 31WL2/2**
Revisit.
Figure 3. A selection of historic artifacts from site 31WL2/2** Revisit.
Page 2 of 4

f
Small Triangular Metavolcanic
Translucent Quartz Biface Fragment,
PPK, 27.1:1 21.1:2
i
F . Quartz Flake/Flake Metavolcanic
Quartz Flakes/Flake Fragment, 26.1:2 Flake/Flake
Fragments, 16.1:2 Fragment, 21.1:1
NETRfC S 2 8 4 5
4
Metavolcanic
ents,
IFI
i
Figure 4. A sample of lithic artifacts from site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Figure 5. A sample of prehistoric ceramics from site
31WL178/178** Revisit.
Page 3 of 4

Agateware, 25.1:2 a. _
Undecorate 7e-amware, Undec6rated Pearlware
12.1:2 23.1:3
Rouletted Nottingham
Stoneware, 16.1:4
OMAN
s
Brown #`
Bottle Glass, Brown
4.1:3 Bottle Glass,
Undecorated White Salt -
Glazed Stoneware, 28.1:1
3
Brick
Fragments,
16.2:3
Figure 6. A sample of historic artifacts from site 31WL178/178** Revisit.
Page 4 of 4

Appendix C.
Resume of Principal Investigator

BOBBY GERALD SOUTHERLIN
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
704 West Main Street
Clayton, NC 27520
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
CEO, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Senior Archaeologist, Principal Investigator, Field Director, Zooarchaeologist
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Yemasee Indian Archaeology in South Carolina
Mississippian Settlement Patterns in the Etowah River Valley
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis
Material Culture Replication (lithics and ceramics)
EDUCATION:
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Georgia, 1993.
B.A. in Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1988.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
North Carolina Archaeological Society (Life Member)
North Carolina Professional Council
Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists
Society for Georgia Archaeology (Life Member)
Society for American Archaeology
Archaeological Society of South Carolina (Life Member)
Southeastern Archaeological Conference
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS (Phase I) and ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TESTING
(Phase II)
Utility Corridors for ANR Pipeline Company (Detroit), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Duke
Power Company (Charlotte), Oglethorpe Power Corporation, and Transco Pipeline Company
(Houston).
Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina
Department of Transportation (Columbia), North Carolina Department of Transportation (Raleigh)
Development Tracts for Consolidated Government of the City of Columbus/Muscogee County
(Georgia), Macon County (North Carolina), U.S. Corps of Engineers (Savannah and Mobile
Districts), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Columbia), and various private developers
(Georgia and South Carolina)
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY (Phase III)
Yemasee Indian occupations at the Chechessee Old Field sites (38BU1605 and 38BU1609) for the
Chechessee Creek Club
Three prehistoric sites (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) in Horry County, South Carolina for
Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club (Myrtle Beach, S.C.)

Two Prehistoric sites (38LX50 and 38LX141) in Lexington County, South Carolina for the South
Carolina Department of Transportation
The Callawassie Burial Mound and Village site (38BU19) in Beaufort County, South Carolina
Two prehistoric sites (9FL203 and 9FL206) in Floyd County, Georgia for the Georgia Department
of Transportation
EXPERIENCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES
Fort Jackson, SC; Camp Lejeune, NC; Robbins Air Force Base, GA; Fort Benning, GA; Hurlbert
Field, FL; Coastal Systems Station Panama City, FL; Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL; Fort
Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
• Georgia Power Company (Flint River Hydroelectric Project)
• Duke Energy (Shoreline Surveys at Lake James and Lake Norman North Carolina and Fishing Creek
Lake, South Carolina)
• Crisp County Power Commission (Lake Blackshear, Georgia)
** A detailed listing of individual projects is available upon request

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Harnma M. harms, Admini%trvnr
Got mor )toy C x4wr
Suntory $u.i I I I FanrJ[mr
September 11, 2017
David B. Morton day dla�bartietwa&com
Bartlett Engineering & Surveying
I906 Nash Street South
Wilson, NC 27893
Re: Wilson County Solid Waste Services New Activity Areas, ER 17-1519
Dear Mr. Morton:
Office of Archn'[- ■nd $ ftsenn
1)(T+ut) SCLCrrtsrr Knon Ckvlr -
Thank -You for your submission of August 9, 2017, concerning the above referenced project. We have
reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments.
There are not historic buildings that will be affected by this project.
Three of the five proposed activity areas do not contain previously recorded cultural resources, and
construction in these locations is unlikely to affect any significant historic properties. These three areas
include the proposed hurricane debris area, the proposed yard waste compost and mulch processing
expansion area, and the proposed LC1D landfill area. No work with regard to historic sites is
recommended for these areas.
Two previously recorded archaeological sites, 31 WL2 and 31 WL178, are located in the proposed
Westside 11 C&D landfill area and the proposed C&D recycle area, respectively. These sites have not
been assessed to determine whether they are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
While fanning operations have taken place in the project area, analysis of aerial imagery from 1957 to
present suggests that intact portions of these archaeological sites may be present in the parcel, particularly
along the margin of Suck Branch. — —
We recommend that prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activities within the Westside 1I C&D
landfill area and the proposed C&D recycle area, a comprehensive archaeological survey of these two
areas be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of this survey will be to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project, Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities. Please note that our office now requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology
Review Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field
investigation.
LOcr<thm: lull - r251) n Strut, Itak-Igh NCI 2-1 UP I 1Msib PSAddrcss:4617.%IAd'wntcrf;rnive. I:skyh NC274fY)4617 TeLephooe/Fiax-(!19) 60765701007.65"
r

One paper copy and a digital copy of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one paper copy and a
digital copy of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of
State Archaeology through this office for review and comment as soon as they are available and in
advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities. A list of archaeological consultants who
have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at
www.archaeology.seder.gqv/ncarch/resouree/consultants.htrn. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
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 comments,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
[e-mail]. I all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely yours,
r} Ramona Bartos

btu. STATE,,
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton
January 8, 2018
David B. Morton
Bartlett Engineering & Surveying
1906 Nash Street South
Wilson, NC 27893
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Archaeological Survey of the Wilson County Solid Waste Expansion Tract, Wilson County, ER 17-1519
Dear Mr. Morton:
Thank you for your letter transmitting the above -referenced archaeological survey report. We have reviewed
the report and offer the following comments.
Intensive archaeological survey of the specified 34-acre area of potential effects resulted in the relocation and
delineation of sites 31WL2 and 31WL178. Based on the artifacts recovered and soil stratigraphy revealed
during the survey, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. recommends that additional work be
undertaken to determine if these sites have the potential to provide important information about the Early
Archaic Period, the Tuscarora, and the eighteenth -century settlement of Wilson County. This office concurs
with these recommendations. No ground -disturbing activities should be undertaken in the 31WL2 and
31WL178 site areas until they can be assessed to determine if they are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
We request that a site assessment research plan be submitted to this office for review prior to any additional
archaeological fieldwork activities. Alternatively, if the proposed project can be redesigned to avoid sites
31WL2 and 31WL178, we request a preservation plan be submitted for review. Thank you for your
consideration, and we look forward to working with you to help protect North Carolina's historic resources.
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,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
c2(Ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Phase II Testing Management Summary and
National Register of Historic Places Statement of Eligibility
For Archaeological Sites 31WL02 and 31WL178,
Wilson County Solid Waste Site, Wilson County North Carolina
ER 17-1519
Prepared by
Bobby Southerlin
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
August 2020
Introduction
In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson
County, North Carolina. The survey area is located just east of the town of Wilson and encompassed
approximately 34 acres (Figure 1). The property is owned by Wilson County, and the project area
boundaries were comprised primarily of property lines, except the eastern boundary, which is bounded by
the floodplain of Buck Branch, a tributary of Toisnot Creek. The majority of the project tract was
characterized by fallow agricultural fields. This survey was undertaken on behalf of Bartlett Engineering
and Surveying. The goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within
the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility to the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), and make management recommendations, as appropriate.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in
Raleigh. Two previously recorded sites were identified within the project tract, 31WL02 and 31WL178.
Site 31 WL02 was recorded in 1968 by a local artifact collector who had collected Native American lithic
and ceramic artifacts at the site. No NRHP eligibility recommendation was advanced for this site. Site
31WL178 was recorded in 1990. The data was based on a surface collection survey. Native American
components identified included Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Woodland. An eighteenth -century
historic component was identified based on the recovery of temporally diagnostic glass and ceramics. Based
solely on the surface collection, site 31 WL 178 was recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
During the course of this survey, both previously recorded sites were located, and their boundaries
were formally defined (Figure 2). Site 31 WL02 was found to contain both historic and prehistoric
components. Artifact deposits were relatively deep, and the deepest deposits included artifacts dating to the
Early Archaic Period. Multiple ceramic period components spanning the Woodland Period were also
identified. The historic component is very disturbed and mainly consists of debris associated with a
nineteenth/twentieth century dairy farm complex. Historic and prehistoric components were also identified
at site 31 WL 178. The prehistoric occupation spans the Woodland Period, and it was noted that there remains
the potential for intact evidence of earlier occupations based on the presence of relatively deep deposits.
Previous work at this site had documented Middle and Late Archaic components. The historic component
consists of a middle eighteenth century occupation with a light scatter of more modern material.

�_77'-~
/ 'I
f/
/
NASH Elm City ri
COUNTY
1
i a J
EDGECOMBE
COUNTY
Sims
ti
Wilson 5 O
� (�, Prajecl Vicnity
WILSON
COUNTY
`
Saratoga
LN(Y)
Lucama
1 �a Black
Creek
Z
Stantonsburg
��
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
® County Boundary
GREENE
COUNTY
0 Municipal Boundary
WAYNE
0 1.5 3
COUNTY
4.5 6
Miles
Figure 1. Map showing approximate location of the project area.
Following consultations with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeologists, a Phase II
testing plan was developed to more fully assess sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178. This plan consisted of several
tasks, including:
• Excavation of five 1 by 2-meter test units;
• Machine scraping away the plow zone at ten 3 by 5-meter scrapes;
• Sampling of identified cultural features and analyses of their contents;
• Geomorphological analysis of the project setting;
• Metal detector survey; and
• Detailed archival research on the historic occupations
Field tasks were conducted between 3 February and 7 April 2020. Archival research and laboratory analyses
are ongoing.
Based on the results of this investigation, both sites have demonstrated that they retain sealed
contexts which can contribute data on research themes about both historic and prehistoric lifeways. Site
31WL02 can add new information about Archaic and Woodland settlement in the region. Site 31WL178
can contribute to our understanding of early historic settlement in what is now Wilson County during the
late eighteenth through early nineteenth century. This document provides an update on the Phase II testing
of sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178, including a definitive NRHP eligibility statement for each site.

31WL178
It
-
Y �
i
`- 31 WL02'`
Wilson Co. Solid Waste
Original APE
Revised APE
CDfootprint_50ftcorridor
potential_pond
- � Archaeological Site
ti
0 50 100 150 200
!' S
Meters
Figure 2. Aerial map showing sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178 in relationship to the original APE
and the revised APE.

Site 31WL02
Field Results
Metal Detection. Metal detection survey was conducted at 31 WL02 but with disappointing results.
A previously identified late nineteenth/early twentieth century component associated with a dairy farm had
been identified at the far northern part of the site, but this component was determined not eligible for the
NRHP and was not the focus of metal detection efforts. Metal detection efforts were instead focused on
identifying any items which could be linked to the Late Woodland (Protohistoric) component at the site. In
addition to general metal detection sweeps at 7.5-meter intervals across the site area, machine scrapes and
features were metal detected. Extensive metal debris was found in the northern part of the site, but no items
linked to the Late Woodland (or early historic) occupation were identified.
Test Units. Five test units measuring 1 by 2 meters were excavated at 31WL02 (Figure 3). These
units exposed disturbed plow zone contexts ranging in depths from 20 — 35 centimeters below surface.
Subsequent sub -plow zone levels were excavated in arbitrary 10-centimeter zones. Maximum depths of test
units ranged between 40 and 100 centimeters below the surface. Two cultural features (Features 601 and
602) were identified in test units; Feature 601 was identified in Test Unit 201 and Feature 602 was identified
in Test Unit 202. A variety of diagnostic lithic and ceramic artifacts were collected from test units. Table
1 summarizes details of the test units at 31 WL02. Unit profile photographs are presented in Appendix A.
Table 1. Description of Test Units Excavated at Site 31WL02.
Test Unit
Prehistoric Artifact Quantity
Historic
Components
Features
Number
Artifact
Identified
Quantity
Lithics
Ceramics
Organic
(Presence/
Absence
201
169
12
Bone
102
19th-20th cen.
601
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
202
240
34
Absent
6
Unknown historic
602
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
Middle Archaic
203
184
50
Bone
3
L. 19' -E. 20" cen.
-
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
Early Woodland
204
75
10
Charcoal
-
Late Woodland
-
Middle Woodland
205
136
12
Absent
-
Late Woodland
-

31 WL178 _
'2
8
' 9 `201
�Y `
I 202 7 +,
203
1
Y
�.�• � ' � yam.
Legend
APE
Archaeological Site
Sediment Pond
■ Test Unit
Scraped Area
2-ft Contour
N
E
�s
0 20 40 60
Meters
Figure 3. Map showing location of test units and machine scrapes at 31 WL02.

Machine Scrapes. A total of 10 3 by 5 meter machine scrapes were excavated at 31 WL02 (see
Figure 3). A backhoe with a smooth bladed bucket removed the plow zone, exposing E horizon soil. Each
machine scrape was then shovel shaved. Machine scrapes 2 and 10 were abandoned due to the high water
table, but two replacement scrapes were excavated in new locations. Fourteen features were identified in
these scrapes. In addition, a number of diagnostic artifacts were collected while troweling the scrapes. In
Scrapes 5, 8, and 12 a 10-centimeter level measuring 2 by 2 meters was excavated to sample artifact bearing
zones below the plow zone. Plan views of a selection of these scrapes is presented in Appendix A.
Features. A total of 17 soil anomalies were classified as Features (Table 2), and 13 were examined
in more detail. Most of these are pit features, but several are possibly plow dip disturbances. Diagnostic
Woodland and/or Archaic artifacts were collected from five features. Feature examination included the
excavation and retrieval of soil samples for fine and water screening. Faunal preservation was fair, and
faunal remains were collected from seven features. Charcoal fragments were common, and carbonized plant
remains were collected from 10 features. Plan and profile views of examples of these features are presented
in Appendix A.
Table 2. Description of Features at Site 31 WL02.
Feature
Prehistoric Artifact Quantity/Weight
Historic
Components
Location
Number
Artifact
Quantity/
Weight
Lithics
Ceramics
Charcoal/Bone
601
108
6
Bone-0.24g
0.2g
Unknown historic
Test Unit 201
Charcoal-5.3g
Middle Woodland
Early Woodland
EarlyArchaic
602
8
1
-
-
Unknown prehistoric
Test Unit 202
603
26
3
Bone-3.52g
-
Unknown prehistoric
Scrape 7
Charcoal-0.9
604
117
12
Bone -3.3g
0.4g
Unknown historic
Scrape 7
Charcoal-22.3g
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
605
196
78
Bone-60.75g
-
Late Woodland
Scrape 7
Charcoal-4.6g
Middle Woodland
606
153
26
Bone-4.7g
1
Unknown historic
Scrape 6
Charcoal-6.8g
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Early Archaic
607
Not Excavated
608
Not Excavated
609
Not Excavated
610
21
-
Charcoal-37.3g
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
611
38
Charcoal-I.Og
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
612
52
Charcoal-1.34g
Unknown Prehistoric
Scrape 5
613
STERILE
614
STERILE
615
137
8
Bone-5.99g
5
Unidentified historic
Scrape 11
Charcoal-6.lg
Late Woodland
Middle Woodland
616
110
30
Bone-33.18g
Unidentified historic
Scrape 8
Charcoal- 11. 8g
Early Woodland
Middle Woodland
617
Not Excavated

Specialized Analyses
Geomorphological Analyses
Dr. Christopher Moore is conducting geomorphological studies at sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178.
He sampled three areas at the two sites and determined that they are situated on three separate terraces. The
upper terrace is associated with 31 WL 178 and the middle and lower terraces are associated with 31 WL02.
Dr. Moore has conducted geochemical and sedimentology analyses and has submitted three soil
samples for Optically -Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating. Most of his analyses are completed, but he
is waiting on a final OSL date to finish his geomorphological assessment.
Dr. Moore noted a platinum (Pt) anomaly at 42.5 to 45 centimeters below the surface at 31 WL 178
and a remnant of this anomaly at 31 WL02 at the same depth. The presence of this anomaly suggests the
Younger Dryas (YDB) onset zone (ca. 12,835 to 12,735 cal BP) is at this depth, indicating the shallow
nature of both sites. OSL dates should help confirm this. Based on his research, Dr. Moore has noted Early
Archaic points conflated with Paleo material at the same depth as a consistent pattern. The presence of
flakes deeper than this depth is likely the result of trickle down due to natural processes and bioturbation.
Preliminary OSL results for a sample taken at a depth of 70 centimeters below surface at 31 WL02 could be
as old as 100,000 years. This result in combination with the depth of the platinum anomaly confirms the
relatively shallow nature of both sites, with the human occupations being confined to the upper 45
centimeters of soil.
Faunal Analysis
Bone fragments were collected from seven pit features at 31WL02. A total of 115 bone fragments
weighing 111.71 grams was collected during Phase 2 investigations, mostly from feature contexts (Table
3). The total assemblage biomass or metal weight is 12.37323 g. Deer accounts for the highest percentage
of biomass in this assemblage followed by UID Mammal. The assemblage is in generally poor condition.
Much of the bone is burned or calcined. Deer and squirrel are the only species that could be identified
(Table 4).
The modifications identified in the bone assemblage indicate disposal of the bone in a fire or the
burning of debris in a disposal pit. Two features, 605 and 616, each yielded elements representing the entire
body of a deer and these animals account for 59 percent of the assemblage's total meat weight. However,
the lack of gnawing modifications indicates that all of the pit features yielding faunal material were sealed
from scavengers. The presence of squirrel could indicate the exploitation of small mammals as a food source
or simply the incidental presence of the animal at the site. None of the bones are suspected of being human.

Table 3. Summary of Bone Recovered from Feature Contexts at 31 WL02.
Feature
Number�Count/Weight:::1
Bone
Species Identified
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
601
4+ / 0.56 g
UID Mammal
609
-
-
602
-
-
610
-
-
603
5+ /3.16 g
UID Mammal
611
-
-
604
- / 0.76 g
-
612
-
-
605
67 / 43.31 g
UID Mammal, Deer,
Squirrel
613
-
606
2+ / 4.7 g
UID L . Mammal
614
-
-
607
-
-
615
l l+ / 6.37 g
UID Mammal
608
-
-
616
24+ / 33.18 g
Deer
Table 4. Site 31 WL02 Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage Identifications.
F---iAXON
NISP
WEIGHT (g)
MNI
BIOMASS
%
UID Mammal
94
28.9
-
-
4.313284
34.8
UID L . Mammal
2
4.18
0.756935
6.1
Odocoileus vir imanus
18
51.81
2
75
7.294109
59.0
Sciurus s .
1
0.3
1
25
0.0089
0.07
UID Bone
-
26.52
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
115
111.71
3
100
12.37323
99.97
Ethnobotanical Analysis
Carbonized plant remains were not uncommon in features at 31 WL02. Samples from feature
contexts were submitted to Ms. Leslie E. Branch-Raymer, archaeobotanist with Paleobot of Decatur,
Georgia. The purpose of the ethnobotanical analysis is to assess the conditions, variety, and preservation of
plant remains and to determine likely avenues for further ethnobotanical and subsistence research at the
site. Ms. Raymer's analyses will also seek to determine if domesticated plant species are present in Native
American features, as well as determining what native plant species may have been used. This analysis is
ongoing.
Summary and NRHP Eligibility Statement
The initial archaeological survey identified historic and prehistoric components at 31 WL02
(Southerlin 2017). The historic component was associated with a late nineteenth through middle twentieth
century dairy farm complex. No structural remains were found during the survey, and push -piles within the
nearby tree line indicated structures were likely razed. The historic component at 31 WL02 was determined
to be unlikely to yield new or significant information about the historic occupation of the region. For this
reason, the historic component at 31 WL02 was recommended not eligible for the NRHP. During the Phase
II field investigations historic debris was found buried in shallow pits/machine scrapes, further confirming
the disturbed nature of the late nineteenth through twentieth century historic component and the
recommendation that the historic component at 31 WL02 is not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL02 retains intact cultural features associated with the Native American occupations.
Intact pit features were identified in two test units and multiple machine scrapes in the northeastern part of
the site. A number of the pit features yielded diagnostic Woodland ceramics. However, Late Woodland
Cashie ceramics linked to post -contact Tuscaroroa Indian contexts were not identified, nor were any Late

Woodland ceramics found in association with Colonial Period artifacts. Thus, while Cashie pottery was
found at the site, it is believed to be associated with the pre -contact Tuscarora.
There is also evidence that intact sub -plow zone Archaic contexts are present. A number of
diagnostic Archaic points, as well as various amounts of lithic debris, were recovered while troweling the
machine scrapes, However, geomorphological evidence suggests that the Early through Late Archaic
components may be restricted to a very narrow zone between 30-40 centimeters below the ground surface.
The function of the pit features at 31WL02 is currently unknown, although most appear to have
been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts can be used to reconstruct
material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and charcoal) is present and can shed light on
the subsistence and/or environmental reconstruction of what would become Wilson County. It is considered
likely that many additional cultural features are present in the northeastern part of the site. Similar types of
features identified at 31 WL02 have been found at other Native American sites in Wilson County, some of
which were found to be associated with human burials. Based on these factors, site 31 WL02 is
recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. This Phase 11 has served to define the eastern
portion of site 31 WL02 as having retained the most significant features and deposits. The western portion
of the site has undergone varying degrees of disturbance and no intact cultural features were identified in
the test units or scrapes excavated there. Figure 4 illustrates the portion of the site that is recommended for
either preservation or mitigation.
If impacts to the significant portion of site 31 WL02 are to be avoided, permanent measures to
ensure preservation into the future will be necessary. These measures will be determined by the SHPO but
may include development and execution of a Memorandum of Agreement, establishment of a preservation
or conservation easement, and the installation of permanent fencing around the site.
If preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL02 is not possible, further data recovery is
recommended. It is recommended that this phase include:
1. Additional machine scraping in the vicinity of cultural features identified during the Phase 11
investigation.
2. Radiocarbon dating of multiple organic samples, especially in context with diagnostic ceramics or
stone tools.
3. The complete excavation of the larger features identified during Phase II to assess whether or not
they are associated with an individual household or a larger settlement type with multiple
households (e.g., hamlet or village).
4. Additional specialized analyses (ethnobotanical, zooarchaeological, etc.) addressing subsistence
and environmental reconstruction.
Site 31WL178
Field Results
Metal Detection
As at site 31 WL02, metal detection sweeps were conducted at 7.5-meter intervals across the site
area; machine scrapes and features were also metal detected. No early historic items linked to the late

201 ./
� . 202 /6 7/ r ,
31 WLW02 g
293
4 h•
4"
Legend
APE
QArchaeological Site
® Further Work
® Sediment Pond
© Test Unit
Scraped Area
— 2-ft Contour
N
WE
s
0 20 40 60
Meters
Figure 4. Map showing the portion of 31 WL02 considered to retain significant deposits.

eighteenth/early nineteenth century component at 31WL178 were identified. However, a dense scatter of
aluminum siding fragments from the hog farm was found in the southwest part of the site.
Test Units
Five 1 by 2-meter test units were excavated at site 31WL178. These units were placed in areas
where survey shovel tests had encountered either deep deposits or temporally diagnostic artifacts (Figure
5). The plowzone was removed as a single level; subsequent levels were excavated in 10-centimeter
increments. A brief summary of each test unit's characteristics is presented in Table 5. Unit profile
photographs are presented in Appendix B.
Table 5. Description of Test Units Excavated at Site 31 WL 178.
Test Unit
Historic Artifact Quantity/Weight
Prehistoric
Components
Features
Number
Artifact
Identified
Quantity
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
201
13
10
8
5/45.lg
103
L. 181"- E. 19' cen.
-
Early 201 cen.
Late Woodland
Early Woodland
Middle Archaic
202
15
9
6
144.Og
115
L. 18' -E. 19t' cen.
-
Archaic
203
3
7
5
1/88.8g
15
17'to mid/L. 18' cen.
-
20' cen.
Late Woodland
204
6
7
4
1/9.6g
81
18' -E.19' cen.
-
k05j
-
10
:!:1:T99:1=iO
Mid/L. 20::1 "' cen.
-
Late Woodland
Machine Scrapes
Ten machine scrapes measuring 3 by 5-meters were exposed at 31 WL 178 (see Figure 4). A backhoe
with a smooth bladed bucket removed the plowzone, exposing E horizon soil. Each machine scrape was
then shovel shaved. The depth of the plowzone was variable across the site, although it averaged between
35 and 40 centimeters below surface. Scrapes 1 through 8 contained tree stains but no cultural features.
Scrape 9 contained one possible post stain and two tree burns. Scrape 10 contained a cluster of stains that
were determined to be cultural in nature.
Features
A total of 13 circular or ovoid features of varying sizes were at least partially exposed in Scrape 10
(Table 6). Plan and profile views of these features are presented in Appendix B. Three additional soil
anomalies were identified in another machine scrape, but these were determined to be tree root disturbances.
Diagnostic historic ceramics from features consist primarily of creamwares and pearlwares, and strongly
support a late eighteenth through early nineteenth century association. Bone and charcoal fragments were
collected from almost every feature. A number of prehistoric artifacts were found in these features, but
these are the result of the historic pits being dug through prehistoric contexts; no evidence of intact
prehistoric contexts were found at 31WL178

_ -fr y
:7 '
n
a
4
20°
Legend
APE - Test Unit
31 WL178 2-Foot Contour
Scraped area
9
S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters
1 inch = 30 meters
Figure 5. Map showing location of test units and machine scrapes at 31 WL 178.

Table 6. Description of Features at Site 31 WL 178.
Feature
Historic Artifact Quantity/Weight
Prehistoric
Components
Location
Number
Artifact
Quantity
Ceramics
Glass
Metal
Other
Charcoal/
Bone
601
4
24
499.8g
Bone-
33
Mid/L. 181 cen. -E. 19th
Scrape 10
6.14g
cen.
Charcoal-
Unknown prehistoric
3.1
602
-
1
0.9g
Bone-
23
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
17.56g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
20.4
603
-
-
2/3.7g
Bone-
45
Middle Woodland
Scrape 10
0.13g
Middle Archaic
Charcoal-
5.4
604
12
5
36
159.5g
Bone-
95
Mid/L. 181 cen. -E. 19th
Scrape 10
260.43g
cen.
Charcoal-
Early Woodland
27.3g
Late Archaic
605
-
-
1
-
Bone-
2
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
142.88g
Unknown prehistoric
606
4
2
2
371.6g
Bone-
80
L. 17th — E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10
15.36g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
6. l l
607
30
13
25
2/747.
Bone-
67
Mid/L. 18th -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10
07g
48.41g
Woodland Period
Charcoal-
69.85
608
5
-
828.lg
Bone-
12
Unknown historic
Scrape 10
0.47g
Unknown prehistoric
Charcoal-
20.7
609
7
4
8
212.1g
Bone-
Mid/L. 18th -19th cen.
Scrape 10
8.82g
Late Woodland
Charcoal-
Li
Middle Woodland
21.68
Middle Archaic
610
STERILE
611
STERILE
612
STERILE
613
5
1
5
949.98
Bone-
39
E.18m-E.19' cen.
Scrape 10
g
0.07g
Early Woodland
Charcoal-
1.95g
614
25
12
126
3/1681
Bone-
78
Mid/L. 18th -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10,
.3g
160.25g
Late Woodland
TUs 4 and
Charcoal-
5
359.95
615
5
3
7
381.lg
Bone-
34
Mid/L. 181h -E. 19th cen.
Scrape 10,
36.54g
Woodland Period
TU 8
Charcoal-
13.1
616
1
-
1
93.9
Bone-
4
E. 19' cen.
Scrape 10,
3.94g
Unknown prehistoric
TU 9

Specialized Analyses
Geomorphological Analyses
See Site 31 WL02 Discussion
Faunal Analysis
The faunal assemblage contains 1,468 bones weighing 932.35 g, recovered from 13 features (Table
6). The total assemblage biomass or metal weight is 111.6358 g. Cow accounts for the highest percentage
of biomass in this assemblage followed by pig and deer. The assemblage is in generally poor condition.
Much of the bone is friable, and the vast majority could not be identified to a specific species. However,
deer, cow, pig, and turtle are represented (Table 7). Pig skull fragments, teeth, and tooth fragments were
recovered from Features 604, 607, and 609, suggesting the disposal of butchering debris. From Feature 614,
pig elements representing head (including whole teeth), forequarter, and hindquarter, and foot are present,
indicating the presence of the whole animal. Cow remains from Feature 604 represent head and forequarter
elements. Based on the prevalence of burning and calcining on the bones recovered from Features 602, 604,
and 607, it is apparent that debris deposited in these pits was burned. Turtle may be present on the site
incidentally, although they have been utilized as a meat source.
Table 6. Summary of Bone Recovered from Feature Context at 31WL178.
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
Feature #
# / weight of
bone recovered
Species Identified
601
1 / 2.2 g
Pig
609
29+ / 8.83 g
UID Mammal, Pi
602
67+ / 17.56 g
UID Mammal, Pig
610
-
-
603
-/0.13 g
-
611
-
-
604
121+ / 259.39 g
UID Mammal, Pig,
Cow
612
-
-
605
110+ / 155.62 g
UID Mammal, Deer
613
-+ / 0.07 g-
606
87+ /17.11 g
UID Mammal, UID
Lg. Mammal
614
245+ / 158.67 g
UID Mammal, Pig,
Cow
607
152+ /48.41 g
UID Mammal, UID
Lg. Mammal, Pi
615
83+ /36.89 g
Pig
608
1+ / 0.47 g
Pig
616
1 / 3.94 g
Cow
Table 7. Site 31WL178 Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage Identifications.
TAXON
F-
NISP
WEIGHT (g)
MNI
BIOMASS
%
UID Mammal
998
125.01
-
-
16.11574
14.4
UID Lg. Mammal
2
11.65
-
-
1.904116
1.7
UID Lg. Mammal
cf. Bos turus
1
10.6
-
-
1.748941
1.6
Sus scrofa (pig)
251
210.22
3
42.8
25.72804
23
Bos Taurus (cow)
71
416.27
2
28.6
47.58144
42.6
Odocoileus A.rginianus (deer)
101
142.88
1
14.3
18.17499
16.3
Testudines
Unidentified turtle
17
4.13
1
14.3
0.382549
0.03
UID Bone
-
11.59
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
1,468
932.25
7
100.0
1 111.6358
99.63

Ethnobotanical Analysis
Carbonized plant remains were common in features at 31WL178. As with the ethnobotanical
material from 31 WL02, samples from feature contexts were submitted to Ms. Leslie E. Branch-Raymer.
Her analysis is ongoing.
Summary and NRHP Eligibility Statement
The initial archaeological survey also identified a prehistoric component at 31 WL 178 (Southerlin
2017). During Phase Il, ceramic and lithic artifacts were found to be lightly scattered across the site. No
intact midden deposits, cultural features, or intact buried cultural zones associated with the prehistoric
occupation at 31 WL 178 were found. The Scrape 10 area had the highest frequency of prehistoric artifacts
at the site. But this area was extremely disturbed by historic activities. A number of diagnostic prehistoric
tools were found at Scrape 10, including several in historic feature pit fill. Due to the subsequent historic
disturbance, the prehistoric component at this site lacks stratigraphic integrity. It is unlikely to yield new or
significant information about the prehistoric occupation of the region. For this reason, the prehistoric
component at 31WL178 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL178 retains intact cultural features associated with the late eighteenth/early nineteenth
century occupation. Temporally diagnostic ceramics, especially pearlwares and creamwares, were
recovered from most of these features. The function of these pits is currently unknown, although most
appear to have been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts can be used as
status indicators and to reconstruct material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and
charcoal) is present and can shed light on the subsistence and/or animal husbandry practices of early
American residents of what would become Wilson County. Based on the Phase 11 tasks conducted to date,
artifact and feature distributions can be utilized to identify specific activity areas. Based on these factors,
site 31 WL 178 is recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Presently, the potential occupants
of the site are unknown; however, additional archival research may be able to shed light on their identity.
This Phase II has served to define the eastern portion of site 31WL178 as having retained the most
significant features and deposits (Figure 6). The western portion of the site has undergone varying degrees
of disturbance, and no intact cultural features were identified in the test units or scrapes excavated there.
Preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL 178 or mitigation of proposed adverse impacts
should be considered. If impacts to the significant site area will be avoided, permanent measures to ensure
its preservation into the future will be necessary. As noted for site 31 WL02, these measures will be
determined by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and may include development and execution
of a Memorandum of Agreement, establishment of a preservation or conservation easement, and the
installation of permanent fencing around the site.
If preservation of the significant portion of site 31 WL 178 is not possible, further data recovery is
recommended. It is recommended that this phase include:
1. Additional machine scraping in the immediate vicinity of Scrape 10 in an effort to determine
if any additional intact cultural features are present. We recommend a minimum of three
additional machine scrapes to further attempt to identify cultural features, particularly those
that may be associated with a house.
2. The expansion of Scrape 10 to fully expose all features.

- , I
\
Jf
E
f
f 204 202 ■
a 201_
I
31WLW02
Legend
APE Scraped area
Archaeological Site ■ Test Unit
Further Work 2-ft Contour
Figure 6. Map showing the significant portion of site 31WL178.
W-�m
N
WL
S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Meters

3. The complete excavation of the larger features identified during Phase II to assess whether or
not they are associated with a house or to determine if they represent one house, a small
community with multiple households (plantation?), or some commercial/production/industrial
activity.
4. Additional specialized analyses (ethnobotanical, zooarchaeological, etc.) addressing
subsistence and environmental reconstruction.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Archaeological investigations at 31 WL02 and 31 WL 178 have identified intact archaeological
contexts at both sites. Prehistoric Native American Archaic and Woodland components were identified at
31 WL02. Numerous undisturbed cultural features were identified which can help document past prehistoric
settlement and subsistence patterns, as well as details of general lifeways (i.e., lithic use patterns and
material preferences, ceramic technology, etc.). At 31WL178, intact contexts associated with a late
eighteenth/early nineteenth century historic occupation were identified. This historic component predates
the formation of Wilson County. These early settlers would have been residents of Edgecombe County at
that time. Both sites are recommended eligible for the NRHP. Preservation or mitigation of portions of
both sites is recommended.
This document summarizes the results of Phase II testing at both sites. We anticipate having data
from all specialized analyses by mid -September 2020, and a draft report ready for SHPO review by the end
of September 2020. As SHPO review typically takes about 30 days, comments/acceptance by the SHPO
would be expected by the end of October 2020.

Appendix A
31WL02: Images of Test Units, Scrapes, and Features

Test Units at 31WL02

Machine Scrapes at 31WL02 - Scrapes 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12 (Scrapes 2 and 10 abandoned)

.� ...,. r

Features at 31WL02
Feature 601, plan

ICI
i
..y
Feature 613, profile .
Feature 615, plan ,

Appendix B
31NVL178: Images of Test Units, Scrapes, and Features

Test Units at 31WL178

Machine Scrapes at 31WL178 - Scrapes 1,3,5,8,10
5s
l Scrape 8

r
Y'
•j
Scrape 10 after cleanup
L

Features at 31WL178

�. - 1 �M7 � S Y'1
�, � +� �'ar S fir. - - _ - '��

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Barw-,;, Admintstrazor
C;nverruir Roy Cooper,
Secrrfary I], Reid Wilson
April 29, 2021
Dawn Reid dawn reidCr arch, c
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Re: Phase 11 ArchaeoIogical Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill: Sites 3I WL02 and
31 WL 178, Wilson County, ER 17-I519
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for your submission of the report and site forms for the above -referenced project. We have
reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments.
Archaeological investigations at sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 identified intact deposits that have the
potential to provide important information about the past. American Indian use of both site areas, which are
separated by a farm road, is documented for the Early Archaic through the Late Woodland Periods. Given
the presence of artifacts attributed to the same time periods on both sides of the farm road, sites 31 WL2 and
31 WL 178 are perhaps best understood as a single multicomponent site. This is corroborated by the
geomorphology study, which identified an anomaly dating to the Younger Dryas onset (ca. 12,800 calendar
years before present) at 41-45 cm (14.5-17.7 inches) below the ground surface at both sites, establishing
lateral correlation between them.
Site 31 WL 178 is distinguished by the presence of features that date ca. 1770 to 1830 and are potentially
associated with Samuel Farmer's ownership of the property. Samuel Farmer had extensive land holdings
and was a slave owner. Given the presence of a diverse artifact assemblage as well as faunal and botanical
remains, additional investigations of the eighteenth and early ninetlwenth century deposits at 31 WL178 have
the potential to provide information about the early economic and social history of Wilson County.
f
We concur that sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL178 are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D. Both sites are eligible at the local level in the category of prehistoric archaeology,
with site 3I WL178 also having components that may yield important information in the categories of
historic archaeology and exploration/settlement. The variety of analyses brought to bear on materials
collected from 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 as part of the present work is commendable, as they highlight the
multiple lines of evidence that are present at these sites.
We understand it is the intent of the applicant to avoid portions of -sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL178. Given the
demonstrated significance of these sites, we recommend that consideratipn be given to redesigning the
Project to completely avoid them. If this is not feasible, we recommend development of a plan to mitigate
adverse effects to the portions of these sites that will be affected by the project. This plan should be
Location: U19 11,2€I Jr n" Strrcr, k;duph Nr: 27601 Mailing Address' 4617 Mail `—icr (Inrer, Raie* W. 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]fi/814."98
Y

developed with consideration for what is known about the areas to be affected, including the potential for
American Indian burials and other features, the Younger Dryas onset anomaly, and documented variations
in artifact density.
We request that the report be revised before resubmittal so that it contains the following information:
• Designations for test units and scrapes at site 31 WL178 illustrated in Figure 4.1 (p:102)
■ Site maps showing the locations of identified features
• Revision of project area maps to include the proposed sediment pond as -part of the area of potential
effects
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,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or env ironmental.review(a-)ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
-' State Historic Preservation Officer

Supplemental Phase II Investigations at 31WL178
Addendum to
Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill:
Sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina
Southerlin et al. 2021
ER 17-1519
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
June2021

Supplemental Phase II Investigations at 31WL178
Addendum to
Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill:
Sites 31 WL02 and 31 WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina
ER 17-1519
Prepared for
Smith & Gardner
Raleigh, North Carolina
by
Dawn Reid
Senior Archaeologist
�Gt
b Southerlin
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
June 2021

In October 2017, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an
archaeological survey of a proposed expansion tract at the Wilson County Solid Waste Site in Wilson County,
North Carolina. The survey area is located just east of the town of Wilson and encompassed approximately 34
acres. The property is owned by Wilson County, and the project area boundaries were comprised primarily of
property lines, except the eastern boundary, which is bounded by the floodplain of Buck Branch, a tributary
of Toisnot Creek. The majority of the project tract was characterized by fallow agricultural fields, but
foundations and waste ponds from use of the property as a hog farm were also present.
Two previously recorded sites were identified within the project tract, 31WL02 and 31WL178. Site
31 WL02 was recorded in 1968 by a local artifact collector who had collected Native American lithic and
ceramic artifacts at the site. No National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility recommendation was
advanced for this site. Site 31 WL 178 was recorded in 1990. The data was based on a surface collection survey.
Native American components identified included Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, and Woodland. An
eighteenth -century historic component was identified based on the recovery of temporally diagnostic glass
and ceramics.
During the course of this survey, both previously recorded sites were located, and their boundaries
were formally defined (Southerlin 2017). Site 31WL02 was found to contain both historic and prehistoric
components. Artifact deposits were relatively deep, and the deepest deposits included artifacts dating to the
Early Archaic Period. Multiple ceramic period components spanning the Woodland Period were also
identified. The historic component is very disturbed and mainly consists of debris associated with a
nineteenth/twentieth century dairy farm complex. Historic and prehistoric components were also identified at
site 31 WL 178. The prehistoric occupation spans the Woodland Period, and it was noted that there remains the
potential for intact evidence of earlier occupations based on the presence of relatively deep deposits. Previous
work at this site had documented Middle and Late Archaic components. The historic component consists of a
possible middle eighteenth century occupation with a light scatter of more modern material.
Because both sites appeared to retain sufficient integrity to have further research potential, their NRHP
eligibility recommendation were classified as "unassessed." Additional evaluation (i.e., Phase II testing) of
both sites was recommended in order to definitively determine the NRHP eligibility of both sites. This
recommendation was concurred with by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Phase 11 testing
excavations were conducted between February and April 2020.
The Phase 11 testing of site 31 WL 178 included detailed archival research, the excavation of five 1- by
2-meter test units, machine scrapes that exposed approximately 175 m2, and the excavation of 15 cultural
features. All but one of the cultural features were exposed in Scrape 10 in the eastern portion of the site. This
complex was comprised of numerous pits, many overlapping. Based on artifacts, bone, and ethnobotanical
material recovered, it appears that these pits were used for debris disposal.
Based on archival research and artifact analysis, the historic occupation at 31WL178 extended from
approximately 1770 through 1830 and is associated with Samuel Farmer's ownership of the property. Artifact
analysis suggests high middle class socioeconomic status for the site occupants. Samuel Farmer held extensive
land holdings and was a slave owner.
Bone was moderately abundant but preservation was generally poor. Several large elements were
piece plotted and identified to species in the field. Upon removal from their soil matrix, most crumbled.
Botanical remains were also abundant and preservation was good. Ethnobotanical analysis identified a number
of domesticates, including corn, grape, and peach.
The Scrape 10 area had the highest frequency of prehistoric artifacts. But this area was extremely
disturbed by historic activities. A number of diagnostic prehistoric tools were found at Scrape 10, including

several in historic feature pit fill. Due to the subsequent historic disturbance, the prehistoric component at this
site lacks stratigraphic integrity. It is unlikely to yield new or significant information about the prehistoric
occupation of the region. For this reason, the prehistoric component at 31WL178 was recommended not
eligible for the NRHP.
Site 31WL178 was found to retain intact cultural features associated with the late eighteenth/early
nineteenth century occupation. Temporally diagnostic ceramics, especially pearlwares and creamwares, were
recovered from most of these features. The function of these pits is currently unknown, although most appear
to have been used for debris and food processing/disposal. The recovered artifacts could be used as status
indicators and to reconstruct material cultural patterns. Preserved organic material (bone and charcoal) was
present and could shed light on the subsistence and/or animal husbandry practices of early American residents
of what would become Wilson County. Artifact and feature distributions could be further utilized to identify
specific activity areas. Based on these factors, site 31WL178 was recommended eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion D. Only the eastern portion of the site was determined to contain significant deposits and features
and that portion of the site was delineated for preservation.
Following review of the Phase 11 testing document, the SHPO requested additional excavations in the
western portion of the site. Site 31WL178 is on the highest in elevation in the project area and sits on a
relatively flat to slightly sloping terrace overlooking the modern Toisnot Swamp floodplain. A sloped/scoured
terrace surface between 31WL178 and lower terrace fluvial deposits was likely incised by Toisnot
Swamp/Creek. Flood traction deposits and reworking of sediments is the most likely site formation process at
31WL178 and it was determined through geomorphology analysis that less than 40-45 centimeters of
sediments have been deposited over the last 10,000 years. However, former stable surfaces were identified at
27 and 40 centimeters below surface (cmbs) based on granulometry data and the presence of a YD onset Pt
anomaly at 42-45 cmbs. The rapid decrease in artifact frequency below 40 centimeters was interpreted to
represent a lower boundary for the majority of in -situ occupation floors (Moore et al. 2018). The supplemental
excavations were intended to explore the possible Early Archaic zone at the 42-45-centimeter depth in the
portions of the site that were not slated for preservation.
These supplemental excavations were comprised of machine scraping and the excavation of 2 by 2-
meter units. A smoothed bladed machine removed A -horizon soils, exposing the transition to E-horizon soils
in the southwestern portion of the site (Figure 1). Each scrape measured 3 by 5 meters. Following removal of
the topsoil, each scrape was shovel shaved and examined for possible soil anomalies exposed at depths of 38
and 35 centimeters, respectively. A 2 by 2-meter unit was delineated in the northeast corner of each scrape.
Each unit was excavated in 10-centimeter levels into loamy clay subsoil beneath the possible occupation zone.
These efforts are discussed in detail below.
Scrape 11
Scrape 11 was placed in the south-central portion of site 31WL178 (Figure 1). Two machine scrapes
and a 1 by 1 test unit excavated during testing in this area were unproductive; however, this portion of the site
had yielded prehistoric lithic debitage during survey. The machine removed approximately 38 centimeters of
topsoil, exposing the E-horizon. No potentially cultural soil anomalies were noted (Figure 2). One quartz flake
and one piece of quartz shatter were piece plotted in the scrape floor.
Unit 206 was placed in the northeast corner of Scrape 11. This unit measured 2 by 2 meters and was
excavated in two arbitrary levels. Unit fill was by removed by quadrants and screened through 0.25-inch
hardware mesh. All recovered artifacts were bagged by quadrant.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

a � �� {�'"� r 7 . • —.gam _�� _,- 7
-�s
20
-'Olt�
A-;
31WL178
Project Boundary • Positive
Revised APE • Negative
Site Boundary (NottXsca'No pig
❑ 1X2 rn Test Unit (Motto scale)
3 x 5 Scrape (Not to Scale) r `
0 10 20 30 40
w'' ,
+ T
Meters s /
Figure 0. Map showing location of the supplemental scrapes and test units at 31 WL 178.
Inc. Phase Il Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

a
.'�--,.ors y�y-�-'`�` �•""� � i.F: -�,� -J`t
Figure 2. Plan view of Scrape 11 following shovel shaving.
III
Level 1 was excavated from 38 to 48 cmbs through very compact pale brown (10YR6/3) silty loam.
A total of 26 artifacts was recovered from this level (Table 1). The majority of the flakes are very small
thinning flakes, indicative of tertiary reduction and/or tool resharpening but none can be attributed to a specific
temporal occupation. The single ceramic is a residual sherd (<2cm). Level 2 was excavated to a depth of 58
cmbs through yellowish brown (10YR5/6) clay loam (Figure 3). Three metavolcanic and one quartz thinning
flakes were recovered from Level 2: one from the southwest quadrant, one from the northeast quadrant, and
two from the northwest quadrant.
Table 1. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from Unit 206. Level 1.
Artifact Type
# Recovered by Quadrant
NE
SE
NW
SW
Metavolcanic flake/flake fragment
2
4
9
4
Quartz flake/flake fragment
3
2
-
1
Residual sherd
1
-
-
-
TOTAL
6
6
9
5
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 3. Plan view of Unit 206, base of Level 2.
A full profile of Scrape 11 was drawn and photographed in the field. From the ground surface, the soil
profile was comprised of 32 centimeters of very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silty sand overlying pale
brown (10YR6/3) silty loam. Yellowish brown (10YR5/6) clay loam subsoil was encountered at depths
ranging from 40 to 52 centimeters below the ground surface. Figure 4 presents a view of the scrape and unit
profiles. The potential Early Archaic zone soils consisted of pale brown silty loam, although no temporally
diagnostic artifacts were recovered from this soil zone.
Scrape 12
Scrape 12 was excavated immediately southwest of Scrape 11 (see Figure 1). The machine removed
approximately 35 centimeters of topsoil. The scrape was then shovel shaved. Two potentially cultural soil
anomalies were identified and designated as Features 701 and 702 (Figure 5). Unit 207, measuring 2 by 2
meters, was defined in the northeast corner of the scrape. Feature 702 was located in the southwest corner of
the unit. Feature 701 was located outside of the unit in the western portion of the scrape. One piece of quartz
shatter and one metavolcanic flake fragment were piece plotted in the floor of the scrape.
Unit 207 was excavated in a single arbitrary 10-centimeter level to a maximum depth of 45
centimeters. The upper portion of the level contained very compact brownish yellow (10YR6/6) clayey loam.
The lower portion of the level contained dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) loamy clay subsoil (Figure
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 4. Full north profile in Scrape 11.
6). Three metavolcanic thinning flakes were recovered from the northwest quadrant. The other quadrants were
sterile.
Feature 702 was pedestalled during unit excavation and removed separately. In plan view, this
anomaly consisted of an irregular stain of very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) silty loam measuring
approximately 30 centimeters in diameter. The north half of this stain was removed and screened through
0.25-inch hardware mesh. No artifacts were recovered. In profile, this stain extended to below a depth of 1.0
meter below the ground surface, where it spread in width (Figure 7). This stain was determined to be the result
of natural processes (i.e., tree bum/rot).
Feature 702 was located in the western portion of the scrape. In plan view, this anomaly appeared to
consist of two overlapping stains (Figure 8). The southern stain was roughly circular and consisted of dark
yellowish brown (10YR3/4) silty loam. The northern stain consisted of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) with
inclusions of red (2.5YR5/8) loamy clay and specks of charcoal. The southern stain was bisected and the east
half was removed and the fill screened. One metavolcanic thinning flake was recovered from the feature fill
and one quartz core fragment was recovered from the surrounding matrix. In profile this anomaly was poorly
defined (Figure 9). The northern stain was bisected and the south half was removed and screened. One
metavolcanic flake was recovered from the fill. In profile, this stain had a basin shaped base that terminated
at a depth of 10 centimeters below the scrape surface (Figure 10). Both of these stains were determined to be
the result of natural processes.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

Figure 5. Plan view of Scrape 12.
r
�rrrrr
WOW -
Figure
6. Plan view of Unit 207, base of Level 1.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

...� fie¢-fvre 7Ga
r
Kr.
Figure 7. South profile of Feature 702.
ih
3l W U78
SC RAPE # 12
P1an-e.- of
FEPTUR-L Ir i0l
a>a n=
rn =
Figure 8. Feature 701, plan view.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

31WL1�{ $
aGaiew
Figure 9. West profile of Feature 701.
3ML178
SrrCRAP� #
W
r.41
Figure 10. North profile of Feature 702.
Inc. Phase II Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

No cultural features were identified in Scrapes 11 and 12. Although the artifacts recovered in the
potential lower occupation zone could date to the earliest period of human settlement, no temporally
diagnostics were recovered. Artifacts were relatively sparse and their small size confirm Moore et al.'s (2018)
view that the displacement of very small artifacts below occupation levels is common at Coastal Plain sites in
the Southeast due purely to natural processes. These supplemental excavations have confirmed the lack of
significant deposits in the western portion of the site 31L178.
As discussed in Southerlin et al. (2021), the portion of site 31 WL178 that contains significant deposits
and intact cultural features will be preserved. In addition, the entirety of site 31 WL02 will be preserved in
place. The proposed sediment pond has been relocated outside of the site boundaries. Figure 11 shows the
areas slated for preservation within the proposed landfill expansion area.
44
Wilson County Soilid Waste
Tract Boundary Archaeological Site
Revised APE Area to be Preserved
N
0 40 80 120 160
4'E
Meters y
Figure IL Map showing areas slated for preservation.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

References Cited
Moore, C. R., Mark J. Brooks, I. Randolph Daniel, Jr., Andrew H. Ivester, James K. Feathers, and Terry E.
Barbour
2018 Regional Manifestations of Late Quaternary Climate Change and Archaeological Site Burial
along the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. In Early Human Life on the Southeastern Coastal Plain
edited by Albert C. Goodyear and Christopher R. Moore, pp. 193-235. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Southerlin, Bobby, Dawn Reid, Brooke Brilliant, Christopher Moore, and Lesley Raymer
2021 Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill: Sites 31 WL02 and
31 WL178, Wilson County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.,
Clayton, NC.
Inc. Phase I1 Investigations: 31WL02 and 31WL178
Wilson County, North Carolina

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona hi. Hartos, Adminimrator
S;(wemor Rsiy Choler Sccrermy D. Reid Wilmn
July 5, 2021
Dawn Reid dawnreid(a),archcon.ore
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas w
121 East First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
Re: Phase II Archaeological Investigations at the Wilson County Landfill: Sites 31WL02 and
31 W L 178: and Supplemental Phase 11 Investigations at 31 W L 178, Wilson County, ER 17-1519
Dear Ms. Reid:
Thank you for your submission of the revised report and addendum report for the above -referenced project.
We have reviewed the information provided and offer the following comments.
In a letter dated April 29, 2021, we concurred that sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL178 are eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. We understand it is the intent of the applicant to
avoid the portions of sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 that are eligible for listing in the National Register. Based
on the results of the supplemental work conducted at 31 W L 178, we concur that the portion of the site
outside the proposed preservation area depicted in Figure I 1 of the addendum report does not contribute to
its National Register eligibility, and no further consideration of archaeological resources are warranted for
that area.
For us to determine`that sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 will not be affected by the proposed undertaking, we
request that a preservation plan be developed and forwarded to this office for review and comment. We
recommend that proposed measures be selected to ensure sites 31 WL2 and 31 WL 178 are protected in
perpetuity. This could be accomplished by establishing a cultural conservation easement or divesting the
sites to a land trust such as the Archaeological Conservancy
(https:llwww.arcliaeolo_ alronsery_ancy.ors;about-usWe recommend contacting Kelley Berliner of the
Archaeological Conservancy at [e-mail] for more information about potential preservation
measures. _
Finally, in our letter of April 29 we requested that the Phase II report be revised before resubmittal so that it
contains the following information:
— Designations for test units and scrapes at site 31 WL 178 illustrated in Figure 4.1 (p.102)
— Site maps showing the locations of identified features
— Revision of project area maps to include the proposed sediment pond as part of the area of potential
effects
Location: 101) I mt jontx Sweet, "1(. }ih NUI 27601 Mailing Addrrss: 4617 [Hail Sm ice (:niter, R.-angh NC 37649-4617 Telephone/Fax (419) ii14-6570/814-6999
W,

f We have received a paper copy of the revised report, but not a digital copy on disk as specified by Office of
State Archaeology guidelines (htt s:l/fiies.nc, ov/diicr-arch/OSA Guidelines Dec2017. df, pages 17-18).
Once we have received the digital copy, we will proceed with our review of the revised report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 105 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,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at`919-814-6579
or environmental.reviewnncdcr. =ov. In ill future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking. number.
Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D0104D3-2D41-43C2-993C-914194E1A772
3.1 Floodplains
The main drainage feature on the site is Toisnot Swamp. As shown on Figure 2, no
floodplains exist within the proposed Area 2 footprint.
3.2 Wetlands (and Streams)
Soil and Environmental Consultants, P.A. (S&EC) performed a wetland delineation,
which was confirmed by the USACE on February 28, 2020. None of the wetlands
identified at the facility will be impacted by the proposed expansion. Wetland survey
information is provided in Appendix A.1.
3.3 Unstable Areas
Past site investigations indicates no areas of soft ground, mines, voids, or other unstable
areas within the future expansion area with respect to slope stability and settlement
potential that could potentially damage or disrupt structural components of the
proposed landfill. Also, the soil types (Wagram (WaB), Norfolk (NOB), and Gritney (GtB2))
indicated on USDA-NRCS soil survey information (Appendix A.2) are sandy loams to
loamy sands and are not problematic with respect to the development of the proposed
landfill. Detailed slope stability and settlement analyses have been performed as part of
the permit to construct application, and is included in the Facility and Engineering Plan
(Attachment E).
3.4 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources investigations were conducted by Archaeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) in the proposed Wilson County landfill project area between
October 2017 and May 2021. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) initially required Phase I archaeological survey of approximately 34 acres
bounded by the flooplain of Buck Branch. Within this area were two previously recorded
archaeological sites: 31WL02 and 31WL178. Both sites were identified during the survey
and their boundaries were fully delineated. Based on the survey data, additional work
was recommended for both sites. The SHPO concurred with this recommendation and
Phase II testing excavations were subsequently conducted at both sites. These
excavations confirmed that site 31WL02 and a portion of site 31WL178 retained
significant deposits and intact cultural features and both sites were recommended
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The SHPO concurred with
this recommendation and requested that the project design be modified to allow for the
preservation of these sites. They further recommended that additional machine scraping
and unit excavation be conducted in the western portion of site 31WL178. These tasks
were conducted during the week of May 24, 2021. The report on these supplemental
excavations was accepted by the SHPO.
Wilson County Westside C&D Landfill -Area 2
August 2020
Revised July 2021
Site Study
Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D0104D3-2D41-43C2-993C-914194E1A772
The landfill boundary and ancillary facilities have been established as a result of the
investigations to preserve the entirety of site 31 WL02 and the eastern portion of site
31 WL178. Prior to site disturbance a preservation plan detailing the proposed
preservation measures to be undertaken by Wilson County, including permanent
fenceing and signage, will be submitted to SHPO.
Complete documentation of SHPO correspondence and all archaeological studies is
provided in Appendix A.3.
3.5 State Nature and Historic Preserves
The proposed expansion area will not adversely affect any lands included in the State Nature
and Historic Preserve. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program furnished a letter on
February 13, 2020 (Appendix A.4) stating that there are no rare species, important natural
communities, natural areas and or conservation/management areas within the proposed
project boundary.
3.6 Water Supply Watersheds
The proposed expansion area is not located in a water supply watershed as classified by
15A NCAC.02B.0200. The landfill is located in the drainage basin of Toisnot Swamp, a
Class C surface water, in the Neuse River Basin (Appendix A.5).
3.7 Threatened and Endangered Species.
The future expansion area will not adversely affect any known rare and endangered
species habitats. Threatened and endangered species information is provided in
Appendix A.6.
4.0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL
Local government approval was received during the June 1, 2020 County Commissioners
meeting; supporting documentation including, notification of adjoining landowners, public
notice, and commissioners meeting minutes are provided in Attachment D to the Permit to
Construct Application.
5.0 FACILITY PLAN
A facility and engineering plan is included in Attachment F to the Permit to Construct
Application.
6.0 SITE HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT
This section describes the site hydrogeologic report which was completed following the
requirements of 15A NCAC 13B.1623(al.
Wilson County Westside C&D Landfill -Area 2
August 2020
Revised July 2021
Site Study
Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6DO104D3-2D41-43C2-993C-914194E1A772
PREPARED
FOR -
�■
LEGEND
Q POTABLE WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED C&DLF FOOTPRINT
FACILITY BOUNDARY 2000-FT BUFFER
r - - - - ;
LIMITS OF WASTE/CLAY CAP ISEE REFERENCE 41
PARCEL BOUNDARY
CONTOUR 12' INTERVALI
WILSON COUNTY
' REPARED BY:
SMITH
GARDNER
ENGINEERS
SEAL
DoeuSignetl by: 023426 � �
5358C21E64007440.#//�4%wL nd�=`S,��y
EAL
021
!',`. I Pi,I I DESCRIPTION
Electronic files are instrumen-.s of service provided by
Smith Gardner, Inc. for the convenience of the intended
recipientlsl. and no warranty is either expressed or
implied. Any reuse or redistribution of this document in
whole or part without the written authorization of SmHh
Gardner, Inc_, will be at the sole risk of the recipient, If
there is a discrepancy between the electronic files and
the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard copies shall
govern. Use of any electronic files generated or
provided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes ari
acceptance of these terms and conditions.
APPROXIMATE EXISTING STREAM PROJECT TITLE:
0.2%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
FLOODWAY WESTSIDE EGO LANDFILL
AREA 2 EXPANSION
TRANSPORTATION
ROUTE
NOTES
1. ADJACENT PARCEL NO. 3732-51-3315, OWNED BY PERRY DUBOSE
BULLARD. CONTAINS A CLOSED LCID LANDFILL HD #iNO0801
REFERENCE
I. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY FROM THE NC LIDAR PROGRAM, DATED 2014,
2. PARCEL, BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, AND IMAGERY FROM NC ONEMAP_
3. FLOOD ZONES FROM THE FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD LAYER.
4. STREAMS FROM THE USGS NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET.
5, WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS, FROM DRAWING
"LANDFILLSITE PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8f1100, PREPARED
BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E_
6. ROADS FROM NCOOT.
7. ZONING DATA FROM THE CITY OF WILSON AND WILSON COUNTY
GIS DEPARTMENTS.
`:AWING TITLE:
CHARACTERIZATION STUDY:
AERIAL & TOPOGRAPHY
JAS WILSON 70-1
DRAWN- SCALE:
JpM 1.7,200
swit I JuL 2021
J,
nr,
0 600 1,200 1,800
Feet
WILSON-COOOB
FIG lA

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D0104D3-2D41-43C2-993C-914194E1A772
A�
rm
rm
m
m
m —
m
m
m PREPARED FOR:
N
IN
IV
CA
N
CA
N
IV
IV
NC�j
N
o I
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 oIF
/ I► \ \� \
\
LANDFILL ENTRANCE
W ® E
COMMINGLED'
RECYCLE TRANSFER'
c _ J \ �eJ
/ I
NC HWY 42E
S
\ /
��►
230o
.FACILITY.
//
C A
SCALE HOUSE\
/
/' / / / / 1 _ —
\\� // /
I
/
PREPARED BY:
NC LIC. NO. F-1370 IENGINEERINGI
�/
\� ✓
l
SC COA NO. C01488
ION
r
SMITH+
MAINTENANCE
�l
SHOP
N 722000GARDNER
RD
ENGINEERS
/iA e ��s
v _ 1
JJ
LEGEND
14 N. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh NC 27603 919.828.0577
95o EX/STING 10' CONTOUR 1526 Richland St., Columbia SC 29201
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
\
EXIS77NG 2 CONTOUR
\
(SEE REFERENCE 2) SEAL •••���unn�U���,
•` CARO
j �/�y I ► �
/ I
II
APPROX/MATE PROPERTY LINE
— SEE REFERENCES 1 O • SS/ •
�-y� -9 •�
\ v
/�
/I / I I -�
1 /
�• QUO
APPROX/MATE STREAM CENTER L/NE SEAL
(SEE REFERENCE 2)
N 21000
/ I / /
!
/
028426
APPROX/MATE LIMITS OF SOLID WASTE '
LANDFILL UNIT (SEE REFERENCE 6) '• � •'•.N
i GINEE G .
1
E L BRA• o`••
— — — — — — — — — — — — AREA 2 — PROPOSED WASTE LIMITS •••.,,,,��..••• •
1 ID-1
SEAL
5OFT WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER
�
— — — — — — 20OFT WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER
V '
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE (0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE)
(SEE REFERENCE 3)
50 '
UNDISTURBED WETLAND f
— ` /
�� �
/ ''0 I IIII > �20
(t I
—
- � __ -,
1
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AE 1 PCT ANNUAL
& STREAM BUFFER'
\\\
\\ a `�
\ fig I I
,
'- �� '
CHANCE) (SEE REFERENCE 3)
7 0 0
\�
FLOODWAY
(SEE REFERENCE 3)
REV. DATE DESCRIPTION
200� UNDISTURBED WETLAND \
\ \ ` \✓
\ ► ` ��.-
WETLANDS
& STREAM BUFFERI (DWM REQUIRED)
\� �� - _ =
,
/ h _ _ I �� `\
S\\' -moo
(SEE REFERENCE 4) 1 7/2021 RESPONSE TO NCDEQ
_ =
��If//�
\i I ,
'fUIURE AREA 2 I
`�
AREA OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
AREA OF POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE COMMENTS
(PRESERVED) (SEE REFERENCE 7)
/��°° IiB-13�\
J
SOV
SIGNIFICANCE TO BE
i
//
/�
C&D LANDFILLI�.w
>>
a„•
PRESERVED) (SEE NOTE 1)P-1
EX/SUNG LANDFILL GAS MONITORING PROBE
9°
I
°�
`\
/
EX/SUNG C&D LANDFILL AREA 1 GROUNDWA TER
MW-1
EX/STING
BORROW AREA l //
\ I \ /I�i \ �� —
� �MW-5- ` ��l
B-15
MMS11
I Itlr� \�
/
/
MONITORING WELL
MW-2'
(
1 I ^ B-11)F�`
P-108 EX/STING PIEZOMETER
& MW-1A EXISTING MONITORING WELL
._
1
B-10 _
0.15�
B-12 ILI
L
—
EX/S
o
\
MMir
\ \
\
I� \-.
�\
r \ �
\
air
�l�
PZ-3
�—
B-13 EX/STING BORING
/
MW-3 �,
� \ \ll►II
rl�
I /
� � EMERGENCY
1
GP-3_
II �I f�
YARD WASTE /<
®MW-6D
_'
MW 6
— `�
—�
-- /
fi < ( )1 _ —
I%
P 108
�/ i i IIII II .
I I
STAGING
I(
1—
PZ_
g0 '
/� f
/ ��
_ % \\ ( V _'
%\\/ ) \
a
////�
//// II r
I I III II I ® ,\
Electronic files are instruments of service provided by Smith
Gardner, Inc. for the convenience of the intended recipient(s), and
N 718
9
L °
I / �,/�
>� / ti
�)\/%
no warranty is either expressed or implied. Any reuse or
NOTES
redistribution of this document in whole or part without the
1. AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION SHALL BE PROTECTED BY INSTALLING written authorization of Smith Gardner, Inc., will be at the sole
BARRIER PROTECTION (I.E. CHAIN LINK FENCE WOODEN FENCE ETC.) risk of the recipient. If there is a discrepancy between the
electronic files and the signed and sealed hard copies, the hard
//�
��
I///� \I� ,/��/
IIII/ / J I I I I I II //
�, —
copies shall govern. Use of any electronic files generated or
\'
/ \
�/
� �i/ /
'
,� / \
provided by Smith Gardner, Inc., constitutes an acceptance of
these terms and conditions.
Q
ems'
%
/
\
(�i GMW-3
/ / /
\
\\\/ /j/ / /
/���) ��J/
� ��� "� � � / I /
y�� I I �/ l I J� i i
t� �( \ \�
CONVENIENCE CENTER
QB-17
I
/i�
j
/I ( l
/
PROJECT TITLE:
OB-18
©/i
`\ Q
P-102/'/'
( /// //
/ii r /i����r ///
)(II \
(
r / �� ►1
21
(�� _ \
REFERENCES
CONVENIENCE CENTER
(/�
1 I / l
B_1 g
✓� / / / / /�
ki�O�/// f 1 /
AlC1
—� / / G \
( \ 1///
�
1. PARCEL BOUNDARIES WETLAND AND STREAM LOCATIONS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT
ENTRANCE ENGINEERING &SURVEYING, PC. BASED ON FIELD SURVEY DATED AUGUST 5, 2020.
2. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING &
�✓
SURVEYING, PC. BASED ON FIELD SURVEY DATED AUGUST 5, 2020. SUPPLEMENTAL
TOPOGRAPHY FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF ACTIVE AREAS PROVIDED BY FLOOD RISK
WESTSIDE CAD LANDFILL
N 717000
INFORMATION SYSTEM (FRIS) LiDAR. FEMA MAP NUMBERS 3720373100J AND
3720373200J DATED 04 16 13.
/ / AREA 2 EXPANSION
3. FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION FROM NORTH CAROLINA FLOODPLAIN MAPPING PROGRAM,
FEMA FIRM MAP NO. 3720373100J, 3772037200J, AND 3720374100J.
P-110 / /�/
/ / /� \ I ,/
,,;{% I
/� ��)) II IIIII, �I I I
l IIII
1 MW-8 / ////
\^�� \ �/ .f
��/ /i/��llllll %
ASB
4. WETLAND SURVEY AND STREAM DELINEATION DATED MARCH 2020 FROM SOIL &
STOS TRENCH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, PA.
DISPOSAL
AREA 5. WASTE LIMIT BOUNDARIES, INCLUDING CAP LIMITS FROM MAP TITLED "LANDFILL SITE
�
PLAN", DRAWING NO. 1, DATED 8/1/00, PREPARED BY GARY W. AHLBERG, P.E.
11
6. LCID AND C&D LANDFILL AREA DATED OCT. 2015 MAP TITLED WILSON COUNTY DRAWING TITLE:
/
LANDFILL OVERALL SITE 11 X17 " PREPARED BY BARTLET ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
( )
sy
—. ✓
\\\ \ f���
�/�/j/�///(
�_��;_�_` � ___
�� /ii � / J /
�
7. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY DATED MAY 2020 FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF
s
/i� �
= _<�
o
THE 8. WELLCANDLINAS, INC. BORING LOCATION PROVIDED BY BARTLETT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, PC. EXISTING CONDITIONS
BASED ON FIELD SURVEY DATED MAY 27, 2020.
n
1001
`
I I�
DESIGNED: PROJECT NO:
S.W.H. WILSON 20-1
DRAWN: SCALE:
\
/ `
CLOSED
DEMOLITION
�
R.V.M. AS SHOWN
APPROVED: DATE: JULY 2020
PERMIT ISSUE
I
LANDFILL AREA
' 1
WILSON-D0011
0 400'
800' 1200'
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET NUMBER: DRAWING NUMBER:
FIG. 2
© 2021
Smith Gardner, Inc.