The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200694 Ver 1_Rockfish Creek 2_Addendum_20200526 Archaeological Survey of the Rockfish Creek Water and Sewer Line Cumberland County, North Carolina Addendum to Archaeological Survey of the Rockfish Creek Outfall and Sewer Alignment Corridors Cumberland County, North Carolina ER 18-0126 Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. September 2019 Archaeological Survey of the Rockfish Creek Water and Sewer Corridors Cumberland County, North Carolina Addendum To Archaeological Survey of the Rockfish Creek Outfall and Collector Alignment Corridors Cumberland County, North Carolina ER 18-0126 Prepared for W. K. Dickson & Company, Inc. 616 Colonnade Drive Charlotte, North Carolina 28205 Prepared by Michael Keith O’Neal Senior Archaeologist Under the direction of ______________________________________ Bobby G. Southerlin Principal Investigator Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. September 2019 Rockfish Creek Water and Sewer Corridors Cumberland County, North Carolina ii Management Summary In August 2019, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an archaeological survey of the Rockfish Creek water and sewer corridors in Cumberland County, North Carolina (ER18-0126). This project is an addendum to the archaeological survey of the Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment and Collector Alignment corridors (O’Neal 2019). This survey was undertaken on behalf of W. K. Dickson and Company, Inc., and was conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800). This undertaking has been assigned SHPO environmental review number ER18-0126. The goals of this survey were to identify all archaeological resources located along the corridors, assess those resources for National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) eligibility, and advance management recommendations, as appropriate. The survey corridors total approximately 32.8 kilometers and ranged in width between 6 and 15 meters wide. Shovel tests were excavated at 30-meter intervals along a single transect on the corridor centerlines. Areas with steep slope or standing water were not shovel tested. Shovel tests were also not excavated in areas where the corridors were situated along road rights-of-way or in residential areas. However, all areas were covered by pedestrian walkover with shovel tests excavated in areas judged to have potential for the presence of intact archaeological remains. Background research was conducted at the North Carolina State Office of State Archaeology (OSA). Three previously recorded sites are located within 800 meters of the project corridors. Only site 31CD2208 is in the direct impact zone of the water and sewer lines. This historic and prehistoric site was determined not eligible for the NRHP, and no artifacts associated with this site were identified during this investigation. One new archaeological site, 31CD2211, was identified during this survey. This site is an unknown prehistoric lithic scatter. Due to the constraints of the survey corridor, the site could not be fully delineated. The site should be fully delineated to determine the extent of the site deposits and its NRHP eligibility assessed. However, the portion of the site within the corridor is not considered to be a contributing factor to any potential significance the site may have. No additional work is recommended for the portion of the site within the survey corridor. As no significant archaeological deposits will be impacted by the proposed development, clearance to proceed is recommended. Rockfish Creek Water and Sewer Corridors Cumberland County, North Carolina iii Table of Contents Page Management Summary ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods of Investigation ............................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Area .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Methods of Investigation .......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Results of the Field Investigation .............................................................................................. 8 Background Research Results ................................................................................................................... 8 Field Survey Results ................................................................................................................................. 9 Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 17 References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A. Artifact Catalog Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator Rockfish Creek Water and Sewer Corridors Cumberland County, North Carolina iv List of Figures Page Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the project area. .......................................................................... 1 Figure 1.2. Map showing the current survey corridors (Area 32 and Area 34 Alignments) and the Rockfish Creek Outfall and Collector Alignments. .................................................................. 2 Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project corridors. ..................................................................... 3 Figure 1.3. General view of an agricultural field along the project corridors. ............................................ 3 Figure 1.4. General view of a wooded area along the project corridors. ..................................................... 4 Figure 1.5. View of the survey corridor along Dundennon Drive, looking south. ...................................... 4 Figure 1.6. General view of the low-lying area along Stewarts Creek. ....................................................... 5 Figure 1.7. Map showing the portions of the corridors covered with 30-meter interval survey and judgmentally placed shovel tests. .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.1. Map showing the previously recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity. ..... 8 Figure 2.2. 1922 Cumberland County soil map showing the survey corridors. ........................................ 10 Figure 2.3. 1920s Cumberland County rural delivery map showing the survey corridors. ....................... 11 Figure 2.4. 1938 Cumberland County highway map showing the survey corridors. ................................ 12 Figure 2.5. Map showing the archaeological sites located along the survey corridors. ............................ 13 Figure 2.6. LiDAR image showing the survey coverage and archaeological resources located along the survey corridors. ................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2.7. Representative soil profile along the upland portions of the project corridors. ...................... 15 Figure 2.8. Representative soil profile in poorly drained areas. ................................................................ 15 Figure 2.9. Plan map, soil profile, and general view of site 31CD2211, looking north. ........................... 16 List of Tables Page Table 2.1. Summary of Previously Recorded Sites within 800 Meters of the Survey Area. ..................... 9 Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 1 Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods of Investigation Introduction In August 2019, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted an archaeological survey of the Rockfish Creek water and sewer corridors in Cumberland County, North Carolina (Figure 1.1). This project is an addendum to the archaeological survey of the Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment and Collector Alignment corridors (O’Neal 2019). Figure 1.2 shows the locations of the Outfall and Collector Alignments and the current survey corridors. This survey was undertaken on behalf of W. K. Dickson and Company, Inc., and was conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800). This undertaking has been assigned SHPO environmental review number ER18-0126. The goals of this survey were to identify all archaeological resources located along the corridors, assess those resources for National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) eligibility, and advance management recommendations, as appropriate. Mr. Bobby Southerlin served as the Principal Investigator for this project. Mr. Michael O’Neal, Ms. Abi McCoy, and Mr. Andy Jordan served as the field crew. This investigation was completed in 18 person days. Project Area The water and sewer line corridors are located along the eastern bank of Stewarts Creek and adjacent areas (Figure 1.3). The corridors measure between 6 and 15 meters wide and total 32.8 kilometers long. The majority of the of the survey corridors extend along roads and are traverse agricultural fields (Figure 1.4), wooded areas (Figure 1.5), and residential areas (single family homes and subdivisions; Figure 1.6). Portions of the corridors that extend cross-country also traverse agricultural fields and wooded areas. The corridor extending along Stewarts Creek was generally low-lying and swampy (Figure 1.7). Methods of Investigation A number of different tasks were conducted for this investigation. These tasks include: Background Research, Field Survey, Laboratory Analysis, and Project Documentation. Each of these tasks is discussed below. Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the project area. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 2 Figure 1.2. Map showing the current survey corridors (Area 32 and Area 34 Alignments) and the Rockfish Creek Outfall and Collector Alignments. Background Research Background research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh . This review served to identify previously recorded resources in the project area. Historic maps of Cumberland County and the project vicinity were also reviewed. These maps included the 1922 Cumberland County soil map, 1920s Cumberland County rural delivery map, 1938 Cumberland County highway map, and the Parkton and Clifdale, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps. These maps were used to determine past land use, the possible presence of structural remains or historic landscape features and known Native American occupations. Also, the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey and published soil survey of Cumberland County (Hudson 1984) were consulted to determine the environmental characteristics of the project vicinity. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 3 Figure 1.3. Topographic map showing the project corridors (1972 [photorevised 1982] Parkton, NC and 1948 [photorevised 1982] Clifdale, NC 7.5- minute USGS topographic quadrangles). Figure 1.4. General view of an agricultural field along the project corridors. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 4 Figure 1.5. General view of a wooded area along the project corridors. Figure 1.6. View of the survey corridor along Dundennon Drive, looking south. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 5 Figure 1.7. General view of the low-lying area along Stewarts Creek. Field Survey The field survey consisted of pedestrian walkover of the entire project area. The survey strategy generally consisted of excavating shovel tests at 30-meter intervals along the centerline of the survey corridors. The determination to excavate shovel tests was made during the survey based on the conditions encountered along the corridor. A total of 9.1 kilometers (27.7%) of the corridors were surveyed with 30- meter interval shovel testing. Figures 1.4 and 1.5 show areas typically surveyed by 30-meter interval survey. Developed areas (i.e., neighborhoods and where the corridor follows existing road rights-of-way) and areas with steep slope, poorly drained soils, or standing water were surveyed with pedestrian walkover and judgmentally placed shovel tests. These areas had a combined length of 23.7 kilometers (72.3% of the survey corridors). Figures 1.6 and 1.7 show areas generally surveyed by judgmentally placed shovel tests. Figure 1.8 presents a map showing the areas covered by each survey method. Each shovel test measured 30 centimeters in diameter and was excavated into sterile subsoil or to the water table. Shovel test fill was screened through 0.6 centimeter wire mesh. Details of artifacts, soils, and possible features 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., transect/shovel test or north/east coordinate), depth of artifacts, and initials of the excavator. All exposed ground surface was also inspected for cultural remains. An archaeological site is defined as an area yielding one or multiple artifacts or where surface or subsurface cultural features are present. Artifacts and/or features less than 50 years in age would not be considered a site without a specific research or management reason. To define site boundaries and to further examine archaeological deposits, shovel tests were excavated at 10-meter intervals along the corridor centerline and 5- and 10-meters perpendicular to the corridor around each artifact bearing shovel test. Boundaries along the corridor centerlines were established when two consecutive shovel tests failed to yield artifacts. Delineations perpendicular to the centerline did not extend beyond the corridor boundaries. Site settings and representative shovel test soil profiles were photographed with a digital camera. Plan maps of Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 6 Figure 1.8. Map showing the portions of the corridors covered with 30-meter interval survey and judgmentally placed shovel tests. each site showing the locations of shovel tests and surface finds were produced in the field. All sites were recorded using metric measurements. The locations of each site were recorded using a 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 that 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, all archaeological sites can be considered under all four criteria. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 7 The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources in the project area and evaluate their potential research value or significance based on guidelines for determining if they are eligible for listing with National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Although the final determination of the site significance is made by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), whenever possible, sufficient data were gathered to allow us to make a significance recommendation. Sites that exhibited little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for the NRHP, and no further investigation would be proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at the survey level would have been considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation would be 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 of the resource would be advocated. If preservation is not possible, mitigation options (e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered. Laboratory Analysis Laboratory work begins with washing all recovered artifacts. A provenience number, based on the context of the artifact (i.e., surface or subsurface), are assigned to each positive shovel test location or surface collection area. Within each provenience, each individual artifact or artifact class is then assigned a number. Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights are recorded. All diagnostic and cross-mended artifacts are labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid-free permanent ink. An artifact catalog is in Appendix A. Prehistoric artifacts are cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics, such as material in the case of lithics and decoration, form, and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics. Methods of manufacture and temporal associations are categorized using Coe (1964, 1995), Hayden (1979), Herbert (2009), Ward (1983), and Ward and Davis (1999). Historic artifacts, when collected, are 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 are categorized using Aultman et al. (2014), Brown (1982), Feldhues (1995), Florida Museum of Natural History (2009), Majewski and O’Brien (1987), Noël Hume (1969), and South (1977, 2004). No historic remains were identified during this investigation. 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 of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections: Final Rule) and in the OSA curation guidelines. Upon acceptance of the final project report by the SHPO, the project material will be submitted to OSA for permanent curation. Project Documentation Project documentation involved the production of a technical report using data gathered during the field survey. The environmental and cultural background of the region are presented in the Rockfish Creek Outfall and Collector Alignment corridor report (O’Neal 2019). The following chapter includes the results of background research and field investigation results. Each identified site 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. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 8 Chapter 2. Results of the Field Investigation Background Research Results Background research included a review of archaeological site forms on file at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina. Three previously recorded sites are located within 800 meters of the survey corridors (Figure 2.1; Table 2.1). Site 31CD976 is the Barefoot Cemetery. This cemetery was not assessed for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility as it is located on private property, and the landowner did not grant acess (Gunn and Sanborn 2005). Figure 2.1. Map showing the previously recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity (1948 [photorevised 1982] Clifdale, NC and 1972 [photorevised 1982] Parkton, NC 7.5- minute USGS topographic quadrangles). Sites 31CD2208 and 31CD2209 were recently recorded during a road widening survey of Gillis Hill Road (site forms on file at OSA). Site 31CD2208 is an Early to Middle Archaic lithic scatter and a late nineteenth to twentieth century house site. The site is situated along Gillis Hill Road approximately 200 meters northwest of Stewart Creek (see Figure 2.1). The prehistoric component consists of Early Archaic Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 9 Table 2.1. Summary of Previously Recorded Sites within 800 Meters of the Survey Area. Site Number Description NRHP Eligibility 31CD976 Barefoot Cemetery Unassessed 31CD2208 Early to Middle Archaic Lithic Scatter, 19th to 20th Century House Site Not Eligible 31CD2209 19th to 20th Century Mill Complex Eligible Kirk stemmed and Middle Archaic Guilford projectile points, as well as secondary and tertiary debitage. The historic component is the remains of a tenant house and a scatter of window glass, nails, buttons, and ceramics. The site was determined not eligible for the NRHP due to low prehistoric artifact density, disturbed contexts, and a lack of cultural features. The site is in the direct impact area for Rockfish Creek water and sewer line. Site 31CD2209 is located at the Gillam Hill Road crossing of Little Rockfish Creek (see Figure 2.1). This site is the remains of a nineteenth to twentieth century mill complex and includes a dam and two mill building foundations. Artifacts identified at the site include mill machinery parts and timbers, nails, and barbed wire. The site was determined eligible for the NRHP. Site 31CD2209 will not be impacted by the proposed water and sewer lines. Historic maps reviewed for this project include the 1922 Cumberland County soil map (Figure 2.2), a circa 1920s rural delivery map (Figure 2.3), and the 1938 Cumberland County highway map (Figure 2.4). The 1922 soil map and 1920s rural delivery map show a few houses in the vicinity of the survey corridors where the corridors are in close proximity to the road rights-of-way. The 1938 highway map shows some houses in the direct line of the survey corridors, although this is likely due to the map scale and size of the map symbols. The corridors in the vicinity of the houses on the 1938 highway map generally run along the road rights-of-way or follow property lines. The house associated with previously recorded site 31CD2208 does not appear on any of these maps. Two structures are shown at site 31CD2208 on the 1948 (photorevised 1982) Clifdale, NC topographic map (see Figure 2.1). Field Survey Results The survey strategy for this project was to excavate shovel tests at 30 meter intervals along the corridor centerlines (Figure 2.5). The corridors have a combined length of approximately 32.8 kilometers. A total of 9.1 kilometers (27.7%) of the survey corridors were surveyed with 30-meter interval shovel testing (Figure 2.6). Developed areas (i.e., neighborhoods and where the corridor follows existing road rights-of-way) and areas with steep slope, poorly drained soils, or standing water were surveyed with pedestrian walkover and judgmentally placed shovel tests. These areas had a combined length of 23.7 kilometers (72.3% of the survey corridors; Figure 2.6). In total, 362 shovel tests were excavated along the project corridors. This project took 18 person days to complete. Shovel test profiles in well-drained upland areas generally consisted of 30 to 40 centimeters of gray (10YR5/1) or dark gray (10YR4/1) sand overlaying brown (10YR5/3) sand to 50 or 60 centimeters below the ground surface. Strong brown (7.5YR5/6) sandy clay was typically encountered below this level (Figure 2.7). However, in some areas, sand continued to depths exceeding 80 centimeters. Shovel tests is low-lying, poorly drained areas exhibited dark gray (10YR4/1) to very dark gray (10YR3/1) wet clayey sand. The water table in these areas was often shallow (Figure 2.8). One previously recorded site, 31CD2208, is recorded along Gillis Hill Road in the northwest portion of the project area (see Figure 2.1). This site is an Early to Middle Archaic lithic scatter and nineteenth to twentieth century house site. The site was recorded in March 2019 during a survey for the Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 10 Figure 2.2. 1922 Cumberland County soil map showing the survey corridors. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 11 Figure 2.3. 1920s Cumberland County rural delivery map showing the survey corridors. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 12 Figure 2.4. 1938 Cumberland County highway map showing the survey corridors. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 13 Figure 2.5. Map showing the archaeological sites located along the survey corridors (1948 [photorevised 1982] Clifdale, NC and 1972 [photorevised 1982] Parkton, NC 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangles). Gillis Hill Road widening (site form on file at OSA). The current survey corridor is in close proximity to Gillis Hill Road where delineation shovel tests, excavated when the site was recorded, were predominantly negative. Shovel tests excavated in the site vicinity during this investigation were also negative. The site was determined not eligible for the NRHP, and the proposed water and sewer line will not impact any significant archaeological deposits at this site. One new archaeological site, 31CD2211, was identified during the survey. This site is discussed in more detail below. Site 31CD2211 Corridor: Rockfish Creek Water and Sewer Site Type: Prehistoric Lithic Scatter Component: Unknown Prehistoric NRHP Recommendation: Unevaluated UTM (NAD 83): 3873612 N 680218 E USGS Quad: Parkton, NC Soil Type: Candor Sand Drainage: Little Rockfish Creek Site 31CD2211 is a prehistoric lithic scatter located in the southeast portion of the project area (see Figure 2.5). This site is situated on a ridge top that is relatively level, although ridge side slope leading Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 14 Figure 2.6. LiDAR image showing the survey coverage and archaeological resources located along the survey corridors. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 15 Figure 2.7. Representative soil profile along the upland portions of the project corridors. Figure 2.8. Representative soil profile in poorly drained areas. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 16 down to an unnamed tributary of Little Rockfish Creek is located approximately 30 meters north of the site deposits. The site area is characterized by a mixed pine and hardwood forest. A fenced in residence is located immediately southeast of the site deposits. No shovel tests were excavated in the fenced yard. Site delineations were conducted by excavating 10-meter interval shovel tests along the survey corridor centerline and at 5- and 10-meter intervals perpendicular to the corridor centerline. In total, 24 shovel tests were excavated. Three positive shovel tests formed site boundaries of 40 by 20 meters. Soil profiles typically exhibited 30 to 40 centimeters of gray (10YR5/1) sand overlaying pale brown (10YR6/3) sand to a depth of 55 centimeters. Strong brown (7.5YR5/6) sandy clay was present below 55 centimeters. The plan map, site setting, and soil profiles are presented in Figure 2.9. Figure 2.9. Plan map, soil profile, and general view of site 31CD2211, looking north. Five artifacts were recovered from three shovel tests at this site. The artifacts include four metavolcanic flakes/flake fragments and one metavolcanic biface fragment. None of the artifacts are culturally diagnostic. Artifacts were recovered between 30 and 55 centimeters below the ground surface. Site 31CD2211 is a prehistoric lithic scatter of unknown age. The site was not fully delineated due to the narrow (9 m) width of the project corridor, and it is recommended that the site be considered unassessed for the NRHP pending full delineation and assessment. However, the close interval shovel testing within the survey corridor yielded few artifacts and none that were temporally diagnostic. No cultural features or organic remains were identified. These deposits are not likely to yield new or significant data and would not be considered a contributing factor to any potential significance of this site. No further work is recommended within the project corridor at this site. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 17 Summary and Recommendations In August 2019, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted an archaeological survey of the 32.8-kilometer Rockfish Creek water and sewer corridors. This survey is an addendum to archaeological survey of the Rockfish Creek Outfall and Collector Alignment Corridors (O’Neal 2019; ER18-0126). The proposed water and sewer line crosses previously recorded site 31CD2208. This prehistoric and historic site was determined not eligible for the NRHP. One new archaeological site, 31CD2211, was recorded during this survey. This prehistoric lithic scatter was not fully delineated due to the constraints of the project corridor and should be considered unassessed with respect to the NRHP. However, the deposits within the corridor are not considered to be a contributing factor to any potential significance of the site. No further work is recommended at this site within the project corridor. As no significant archaeological deposits will be impacted by the proposed development, clearance to proceed is recommended. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 18 References Cited Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon-Harper 2014 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual: Ceramics. Electronic document. http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/ Ceramics.pdf. Brown, Ann R. 1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principle Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive Characteristics for Identification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series 15. Coe, Joffre L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(5). 1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native American Legacy. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 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 (FLMNH) 2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ histarch/gallery_types/. Gunn, Joel D. and Erica A. Sanborn 2005 Dimensions of Fall Line Site Function: Survey and Testing the West Fayetteville, North Carolina Outer Loop. New South Associates, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA. Hayden, Brian 1979 Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. Herbert, Joseph M. 2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Hudson, Berman D. 1984 Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 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. Rockfish Creek Outfall Alignment Cumberland County, North Carolina 19 Noël Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. O’Neal, Michael Keith 2019 Archaeological Survey of the Rockfish Creek Outfall and Collector Alignment Corridors, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC. South, Stanley 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. 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. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1948 Clifdale, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, photorevised 1982. 1972 Parkton, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle, photorevised 1982. Ward, Trawick 1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M.A. Mathis and J.J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh. Ward, Trawick and Stephen Davis 1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Appendix A. Artifact Catalog Artifact Catalog Rockfish Creek Outfall 31CD2211Site Number 1.1 Site 2, N470 E500, TR20 ST3, 30-60cmProvenience Number: Catalog Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments Specimen Number 1 1 0.4 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment m1 2 1 0.7 broken tip of a bifaceMetavolcanic Biface Fragment m2 2.1 Site 2, N490 E490, 0-30cmProvenience Number: Catalog Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments Specimen Number 1 2 1 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment m3 3.1 Site 2, N500 E500, TR20 ST2, 30-60cmProvenience Number: Catalog Number Quantity Weight (g)Description Comments Specimen Number 1 1 0.6 Metavolcanic Flake/Flake Fragment m4 Page 1 of 1 Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator BOBBY GERALD SOUTHERLIN Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. 121 East First Street Clayton, NC 27520 Office (919) 553-9007 ax (919) 553-9077 Email: bobbysoutherlin@archcon.org EDUCATION M.A. in Anthropology, University of Georgia, 1993. B.A. in Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1988. AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Archaeological Field Investigation Methods Material Culture Replication (lithics and ceramics) Vertebrate Faunal Analysis PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP Society for American Archaeology Southeastern Archaeological Conference North Carolina Archaeological Society (Life Member) North Carolina Archaeological Council Society for Georgia Archaeology (Life Member) Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists Archaeological Society of South Carolina (Life Member) PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS CEO, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. Senior Archaeologist, Principal Investigator, Field Director, Zooarchaeologist 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) ∙ 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), U.S. Forest Service (South Carolina), South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Columbia), and various private developers (Georgia and South Carolina) Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) – Representative Examples ∙ 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 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED* Reid, Dawn and Bobby Southerlin 2015 Archaeological Survey of the Tubbs Solar Farm Tract, Lenoir County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. Southerlin, Bobby 2014 An Archaeological Assessment of the Piedmont Natural Gas Vulcan Quarry Relocation Lines, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. Southerlin, Bobby, Dawn Reid, Brooke Brilliant, and George Price 2013 Cultural Resources Survey of the Locust Stake Timber Sale, Habersom and Stevens Counties, Georgia Chattahoochee- Oconee National Forests. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. Southerlin, Bobby 2013 Faunal Analysis of Remains from the Simkins House, Columbia, South Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. Tibbetts, Rachel, Brooke Brilliant, Dawn Reid, and Bobby Southerlin 2012 Archaeological Survey of Part One of the Macedonia II Analysis Area, Francis Marion National Forest (prepared for USFS). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. Southerlin, Bobby 2011 Archaeological Evaluation of the Original Site of the Rebecca Vaughan House, Southampton County, Virginia (prepared for Southampton County Historical Society). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. Reid, Dawn, Michael K. O’Neal, Rachel Tibbetts, and Bobby Southerlin 2010 Phase II Archaeological Testing of Six Sites at the Northwest Regional Water Reclamation Facility Tract, Onslow County, North Carolina (prepared for ARCADIS). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. Reid, Dawn, April Montgomery, Michael K. O'Neal, Rachel Tibbetts, and Bobby Southerlin 2009 Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed William States Lee III Nuclear Station 230 kV and 525 kV Transmission Lines, Cherokee and Union Counties, South Carolina (prepared for Devine Tarbell Engineers, Inc.). Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Clayton, NC. * A full listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request