20191132 Ver 1_Archaeological Investigation_20200819

August 15, 2019

Steve Kichefski
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re: SAW-2019-01296, Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Mr. Steve Kichefski:

The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about SAW-2019-01296, and
appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project. Please allow this letter to serve
as the Nation’s interest in acting as a consulting party to this proposed project.

The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre-historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project’s legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.

However, the Nation requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) halt all
project activities immediately and re-contact our Offices for further consultation if items of cultural
significance are discovered during the course of this project.

Additionally, the Nation requests that the USACE conduct appropriate inquiries with other
pertinent Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not
included in the Nation’s databases or records.

If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

August 19, 2019

Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re: Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Little Tennessee River Basin,
SAW-2019-01296, Graham County, ER 19-2305

Dear Mr. Kichefski:

We have received the public notice for the above project for review and have the following comment.

There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based
on the topographic and hydrological situation and the density of archaeological sites in the area, as well as the
recorded Cherokee history in the Buffalo Town area, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric
or historic archaeological sites at the project location.

We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
The archaeological survey is recommended for that portion of the project area with slopes of fifteen percent or
less. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.

Two paper copies and one digital copy of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one digital and
one paper copy of the appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as
they are available and well in advance of any construction activities.

A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/programs/environmental-review/archaeological-
consultants. 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 comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

August 19, 2019

Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re: Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Little Tennessee River Basin,
SAW-2019-01296, Graham County, ER 19-2305

Dear Mr. Kichefski:

We have received the public notice for the above project for review and have the following comment.

There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based
on the topographic and hydrological situation and the density of archaeological sites in the area, as well as the
recorded Cherokee history in the Buffalo Town area, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric
or historic archaeological sites at the project location.

We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
The archaeological survey is recommended for that portion of the project area with slopes of fifteen percent or
less. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.

Two paper copies and one digital copy of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one digital and
one paper copy of the appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as
they are available and well in advance of any construction activities.

A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/programs/environmental-review/archaeological-
consultants. 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.

Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
February 2020
Archaeological Survey of the
East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

i East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Archaeological Survey of the
East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

ER 19-2305

Prepared for

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina

by

Abigail McCoy
Archaeologist

under the supervision of

_________________________
Dawn Reid
Principal Investigator

ii East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Management Summary
In January 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted a Phase I
archaeological survey of the proposed East Buffalo Creek restoration area in Graham County, North
Carolina. This investigation was undertaken on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc., in compliance with
state and federal regulations addressing the identification and management of significant cultural resources.
These regulations include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470), as
amended, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part
800). A letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 19 August 2019 (ER 19 -2305)
requested that an archaeological survey of the project’s impact areas be conducted. The primary 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
advance management recommendations, as appropriate.

The project APE is an approximately 20-acre (8.1 ha) parcel in Graham County, North Carolina.
The tract is located in central Graham County, off East Buffalo Road 2.5 miles north of the town of
Robbinsville. The APE consists largely of the floodplain of East Buffalo Creek and an unnamed tributary.
Restoration activities will include non-invasive vegetation clearing, enhancement of the waterways’
channels, and closure of an access road. All areas with slopes of less than 15 percent were surveyed with
20-meter interval shovel tests excavated along parallel transects spaced 20 meters apart. The entire APE
was walked, exposed ground surfaces were examined, and judgmentally placed shovel tests were excavated
in areas deemed appropriate.

Background research was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) located in Raleigh
and included a review of archaeological site forms, cultural resource reports, and historic maps of the APE
and a 1.0-mile (1.6 km) radius of the APE. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located within
the APE. However, the 1935 historic topographic map showed two buildings located in the southwestern
portion of the APE. One of these buildings is still standing; no evidence of the second building was
observed. One historic resource, the A.M. Odom House, has been recorded within 1.0-mile (1.6 km) of the
APE. This house is no longer extant.

No archaeological sites were identified during this survey. One outbuilding shown on the 1935
topographic map was still intact; the other structure was not identified during this survey. Several rubble
piles were identified in the northwestern portion of the APE. These piles consist of modern debris and are
the remains of two small outbuildings that stood in the project tract between 1993 and 2009. Both have
been razed. Based on the results of this investigation, no significant cultural resources will be impacted by
the proposed restoration activities.
iii East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Table of Contents
Page

Management Summary ................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ v
Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods of Investigation ........................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods of Investigation ................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview ................................................................................. 8
Environmental Overview ................................................................................................................. 8
Cultural Overview .......................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3. Results of the Investigation ................................................................................................. 27
Background Research Results ........................................................................................................ 27
Archaeological Survey Results ...................................................................................................... 28
Summary and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 35
References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator

iv East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
List of Figures
Page

Figure 1.1. Location of project area within Graham County. ............................................................... 1
Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the location of the APE. .......................................................... 2
Figure 1.3. Aerial view of the project APE. .......................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.4. Pasture in the southwest portion of the APE, facing west. ................................................. 3
Figure 1.5. Bulldozer tracks in the wooded portion of APE, facing north. ........................................... 4
Figure 1.6. Wooded area in the southeastern portion of APE, looking east. ......................................... 4
Figure 1.7. East Buffalo Creek, facing south. ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 1.8. Unnamed tributary of East Buffalo Creek, facing west. ..................................................... 6
Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area. ............... 8
Figure 2.2. Map of the Upper Tennessee River basin showing the location of the project area. ........ 10
Figure 2.3. Soils located within the project area. ................................................................................ 11
Figure 3.1. Map showing previously recorded archaeological sites in the project vicinity. ............... 27
Figure 3.2. Aerial view showing bulldozer disturbance and rubble piles in the project tract. ............ 29
Figure 3.3. View of rubble piles, facing west. .................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.4. View of rubbles piles, facing north. .................................................................................. 31
Figure 3.5. Shovel test profile typical of the wetland area, facing north. ........................................... 32
Figure 3.6. Representative shovel test profile from the APE, terminating in loamy clay. .................. 33
Figure 3.7. Representative shovel test profile from the APE, terminating in rock. ............................ 34
Figure 3.8. Outbuilding shown on topographic maps. ........................................................................ 35
v East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
List of Tables
Page

Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Area. ................................................................. 11
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Southern Piedmont in
North Carolina. ................................................................................................................. 13
Table 3.1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within 1.0 Mile of the Survey Area. ............ 28
1 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods of Investigation
Introduction

On January 27th through the 29th 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted
a Phase I archaeological survey of East Buffalo Creek restoration area in Graham County, North Carolina
(Figure 1.1). This archaeological investigation was undertaken on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc.,
in compliance with state and federal permit regulations addressing the identification and management of
significant cultural resources. These regulations include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (16 USC 470), as amended, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations
for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800). A letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 19
August 2019 (ER 19-2305) requested that an archaeological survey of the project’s impact areas be
conducted. The primary 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 advance management recommendations, as appropriate. Ms. Dawn
Reid served as Principal Investigator. Ms. Abigail McCoy served as the field crew.

Project Area

The project tract is an
approximately 20-acre (8.1 ha) parcel
in central Graham County (Figure
1.2). The tract is located off East
Buffalo Road 2.5 miles north of the
town of Robbinsville. The APE
consists largely of the floodplain of
East Buffalo Creek and an unnamed
tributary. Restoration activities will
include non-invasive vegetation
clearing, enhancement of the
waterways’ channels, and closure of
an access road. Much of the project
area is in pasture (Figure 1.3), with a
small area of woods in the
southeastern portion of the project
area (Figure 1.4). Recent bulldozer
tracks run throughout the wooded
area (Figure 1.5– Figure 1.6). East Buffalo Creek traverses the APE along the northern boundary; the
southern boundary follows East Buffalo Road and the unnamed tributary (Figure 1.7 - Figure 1.8). The
entrance to an existing dirt road, which is slated to be closed and re naturalized, was also examined as
grading was planned for that location.

Methods of Investigation

This investigation was comprised of three separate tasks: Background Research, Field Survey, and
Report Production. Each of these tasks is described below.

Figure 1.1. Location of project area within Graham County.
2 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the location of the APE (2000 Robbinsville, NC USGS 7.5
minute topographic quadrangle).

3 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.3. Aerial view of the project APE.

Figure 1.4. Pasture in the southwest portion of the APE, facing west.
4 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.5. Bulldozer tracks in the wooded portion of APE, facing north.

Figure 1.6. Wooded area in the southeastern portion of APE, looking east.
5 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.7. East Buffalo Creek, facing south.

6 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.8. Unnamed tributary of East Buffalo Creek, facing west.

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 archaeological resources in the APE and within a 1.0-mile (1.6 km) radius of the APE
and provided data on the prehistoric and historic context of the project tract. Records on historic resources
recorded within 1.0-mile (1.6 km) of the project area were examined on the Survey and Planning
Departments online HPOWeb portal. The Graham County soil survey (on-line version) was consulted to
determine soil types and general environmental information of the project area. Historic maps of the county
were examined to determine historic land use in the project vicinity. These maps included topographic
maps dating to 1935, 1940, 1973, and 2000, and the 1938 county highway map. Aerial images of the project
area dating from 1984 to 2016 were also examined.

Field Survey

The field survey requested by the SHPO was to focus on portions of the tract with 15 percent slope
or less where ground disturbing activities were slated to occur. The survey area included the floodplain of
the two waterways in the APE and the entrance of an existing dirt road (see Figure 1.2) and totaled
approximately 20 acres (8.1 ha). Survey coverage consisted of the excavation of shovel tests at 20-meter
intervals along parallel transects spaced 20 meters apart. The entire tract was walked over and areas with
exposed surface were examined for artifacts. Supplemental shovel tests were excavated in areas deemed
appropriate.

Shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated into culturally
sterile subsoil, bedrock, or to the water table. All soil fill was screened through 0.25-inch (6.4-mm)
7 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
hardware cloth. Shovel tests were backfilled upon completion. Shovel tests were not excavated in standing
water, Records of each shovel test location were kept in field notebooks, including information on content
(e.g., presence or absence of artifacts, artifact descriptions) and context (i.e., soil color and texture
descriptions, depth of definable levels, observed features).

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. One of the goals of this project was to
provide sufficient data to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether any
archaeological resources identified were significant. However, no archaeological sites were identified in
the project tract during this survey.

Report Production

Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the previous tasks. The
following chapter will provide environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. This information
allows us to place identified archaeological resources into a context and relate them to the prehistory or
history of the area. Next, the results of the field investigation are discussed. Finally, a summary of the
overall project is presented along with management recommendations, as appropriate.
8 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
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.

Environmental Overview

Graham County lies within the Blue Ridge physiographic province of the Appalachian Mountains,
specifically in the Great Smoky Mountains subrange (Figure 2.1). The Blue Ridge is approximately 885 km
(550 miles) long, extending from south-central Pennsylvania to northeastern Georgia, and contains the
highest peaks in the Appalachian system. In North Carolina, there are 43 peaks that exceed 6,000 feet in
elevation and 82 peaks that are between 5,000 and 6,000 feet (NCDEQ 1985). The Piedmont province forms
its eastern boundary, while the Ridge and Valley province of Tennessee forms the western boundary. The
topography of Graham County includes steep mountains, rolling intermountain hills, and deep, narrow
valleys. Elevations within the county range between 1,086 and 5,560 feet above mean sea level (Wood
2011).

Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area.

Climate

The climate of southwestern North Carolina is influenced by a variety of factors, such as elevation,
latitude, local topography, and wind and storm patterns. In general, as the elevation of an area increases so
does the amount of rainfall while the temperature generally decreases (Wood 2011). Temperatures can
dramatically fluctuate over the course of a day and it is possible to have cooler or warmer periods throughout
9 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
the year. In the highest areas of the mountains it is possible for frost to be present even during the summer
months. Precipitation remains generally consistent throughout the year, with rains during the summer often
taking the form of thunderstorms, occasionally causing severe flooding in valleys (Wood 2011). During the
winter, precipitation is often a mix of rain and snow. It is common for heavy fog to settle in the lower
valleys throughout the year (see Figure 1.4).

In this area of the Blue Ridge physiographic province, temperatures range from an average of 41˚
Fahrenheit (F) in winter to 74˚ F in summer (Wood 2011). Due to the general weather pattern moving west
to east and the higher elevations in the northwestern portion of Graham County, average precipitation varies
throughout the county. The estimated annual rainfall averages 60 inches in the northwestern part of the
county while it averages 82 inches in the southwestern portion of the county; the rest of the county’s
averages range from 60 inches to 72 inches (Wood 2011). The average seasonal snowfall is 4.4 inches and
it is rare that at least one inch of snowfall covers the ground at any time.

Flora and Fauna

Plant communities in the Blue Ridge region are highly diverse in their species composition,
productivity, and availability as resources for human use. Significant variability in topography, elevation,
microclimates, soils, and lithology is responsible for this diversity (Purrington 1983).

Within historic times, the vegetation of the Blue Ridge was originally classified as an oak-chestnut
forest, and trees of these species dominated the native stands. During the first decade of the twentieth
century, a fungus called the Oriental Chestnut Blight reached the United States and ravaged the chestnut trees
in the eastern part of the country. As the chestnut disappeared, oaks (especially the chestnut oak) and the tulip
poplar competed to replace it as the dominant canopy species (Kovacik and Winberry 1987).

Various species of oak and pine tend to dominate ridge tops and uplands (Barry 1980). Most ridge
tops are dominated by scarlet oak, white oak, and hickory, although beech, hemlock, and tulip poplar may
be present. Understory species include dogwood, sourwood, persimmon, and serviceberry. Ground cover
shrubs are not dense, but blueberry, mountain laurel, and fringetree are common. The canopy is relatively
open. When combined with the moderate shrub layer, this provides opportunity for an abundance of
herbaceous plants. Ferns may be present, but they are not abundant. The pine/oak/hickory ridge tops would
have provided numerous types of nuts, berries, and wild fruits commonly utilized by the Cherokees (Simpkins
1986).

Some ridge tops and uplands are dominated by pines (Barry 1980). They are most often found on
the crest of knobs, the slope leading between two adjacent coves, and the main ridge separating two parallel
gorges. Pine stands commonly consist of pitch pine, although scarlet oak may also be present. A southern
exposure is preferred in regard to pine-dominated ridge tops and uplands. Understory species and shrubs
include sassafras, horse-sugar, and sparkleberry. Ground cover includes deerberry, huckleberry, spotted
wintergreen, and greenbrier. Although the pine ridges do not produce as much mast or fruit as ridges with
hardwoods, the pine ridges support economic items such as berries and greenbrier.

Prior to European settlement, the project area would have had faunal resources from both deep forest
and river and creek flood plains to rely upon. These animal resources would have included both large and
small mammals, a variety of birds, and various freshwater fish species. Many of these animals are still active
in the project vicinity, although the degree of development has limited their respective ranges.

10 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Drainage

The project area lies within the Little Tennessee River Valley (Figure 2.2). There are three large
lakes within Graham County: Cheoah, Fontana, and Santeetlah Lakes. The major streams and rivers of
Graham County include the Cheoah River, and Yellow, Tallulah, Tuskeegee, Sweetwater, Stecoah, and
East Buffalo Creeks. East Buffalo Creek feeds into Santeetlah Lake. As the county is west of the Eastern
Continental Divide, all streams drain toward the Little Tennessee River and Fontana, Cheoah, and
Santeetlah Lakes (Wood 2011). The East Buffalo Creek watershed originates near the Cheoah Mountains.
Graham County drains to the west into the Little Tennessee River watershed, which continues to flow west
and southwest into the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers, which eventually drain into the Gulf of
Mexico (Wood 2011). East Buffalo Creek runs through the northern portion of the survey area and an
unnamed tributary of the creek follows East Buffalo Road near the southern boundary of the survey area.

Geology/Physiography

Graham County falls within the western portion of the Blue Ridge physiographic province of North
Carolina (see Figure 2.1). This area is generally composed of rock known as Laurentia that have always
been associated with North America (NCDEQ 1985). It is made up of gneisses overlain with sedimentary
rocks, creating a complex mixture of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock that has constantly been
shifted, fractured, and folded over time. The igneous bodies within this area are known for their deposits of

Figure 2.2. Map of the Upper Tennessee River basin showing the location of the project area.
11 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
feldspar, mica, and quartz (NCDEQ 1985). Less-common deposits include iron, marble, talc, copper,
olivine, and barite.

Soil

There are three soil types present in the survey area (Figure 2.3; Table 2.1). The most prevalent
soil type is Spivey-Whiteoak complex, which has a slope range of 8-15 and is bouldery. It forms on
footslopes and toeslopes, is well-drained, and its parent material is colluvium derived from low-grade
metasedimentary rock. Thurmont-Dillard complex is the next most common soil type. It forms in the valleys
of intermountain hill and low mountains from colluvium and old alluvium derived from low-grade
metasedimentary rock. It is well-drained and has a slope range of 2-8 percent. Lastly, Dillard loam is found
on one to five percent slopes and is rarely flooded. It is found in mountain valleys, is well-drained, and is
made from old alluvium derived from low-grade metasedimentary rock (USDA 2020).

Figure 2.3. Soils located within the project area.

Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Area (USDA 2020).
Soil Type Description Percent
Area
Spivey-Whiteoak complex (SvC) 8-15% slope, well-drained 50.9
Thurmont-Dillard complex (ThB) 2-8% slopes, well-drained 31.3
Dillard loam (DrB) 1-5% slopes, well-drained 17.7
12 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Paleoenvironment

Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000
years (the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) including 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 50 to 100 miles east of its present position. During the last 5,000 years there has
apparently been a 400 to 500-year cycle of sea level fluctuations of about two meters (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).

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 1981). 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

In evaluating cultural resources, determining their ability to provide data about the lifeways of past
inhabitants of the region is key. The cultural history of North America can be divided into three general eras:
Pre-Contact, Contact, and Post-Contact. The Pre-Contact era includes primarily the Native American groups
and cultures that were present for at least 12,000 years prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Contact era is
the time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent. The Post-Contact era is the time
after the establishment of European settlements, when Native American populations were generally in rapid
decline. Within these eras, finer temporal and cultural subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions
of particular events and the lifeways of the peoples who inhabited North America at that time. The following
discussion summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in the western half of North
Carolina, emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function throughout prehistory. Table 2.2
provides a summary of the chronological sequence of Native American occupation of the region.

13 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Southern Piedmont in North Carolina.
Temporal
Period
Phase Diagnostic Artifacts Settlement Subsistence
Paleoindian
(10,000-8,000 BC)
Clovis

Hardaway
large, triangular, fluted or side-
notched projectile points
small, seasonal camps intensive foraging,
focus on large fauna
Archaic
(8,000-1,000 BC)
Palmer
St. Albans
LeCroy

Kirk

Stanly
Morrow Mtn.
Guilford
Halifax

Savannah River
smaller side-notched
projectile points with U-
shaped notches

larger corner-notched
projectile points

stemmed points

stemmed with shallow side notches
large Savannah River points with square
stems
soapstone bowls

larger, seasonal camps;
base camps

mostly seasonal camps
with some evidence for
larger, more permanent
occupations
intensive foraging

intensive
foraging and
focus on riverine
resources
Woodland
(1,000 BC- 1710 AD)
Swannanoa

Pigeon

Connestee

Late
Connestee

Pisgah

Middle and
Late Qualla

crushed quartz- or coarse sand-
tempered, thick vessel walls;
cordmarked, fabric-impressed, some
check and simple stamped
small, stemmed points (Swannanoa
Stemmed, Plott Stemmed, Gypsy)

crushed quartz-tempered ceramics;
check stamped and some plain, simple
stamped, brushed, and complicated
stamped; large tetrapodal supports on
vessel base; iridescent sheen on
interior
small triangular and side-notched
points

thin-walled vessels, mostly fine sand
temper and some crushed quartz; some
small tetrapodal supports; plain,
brushed, or simple stamped, some
cordmarked and fabric impressed.
Hopewell artifacts

Sand and some crushed quartz temper;
plain, smoothed or burnished surfaces
with some fabric impressed, simple
stamped, or check stamped; rims often
notched and some incising present

sand-tempered; collared rims
decorated with punctates, incising, and
castellations; rectilinear complicated
stamped vessel

flaring rims with notched strip added
beneath; rectilinear and curvilinear
stamped with some burnishing, check
stamping, and cordmarking
small, dispersed villages;
ridge tops within upland
valleys and floodplains

Floodplains; upland
valleys, coves, and
ridgetops, likely small
hunting camps

some low platform
mounds, rock-filled hearth
pits; generally larger and
more intensive
occupations, floodplains of
major streams; some
smaller, temporary camps

small farmsteads to large
nucleated villages
sometimes with
substructure low platform
mounds; some palisades;
floodplains near major
streams
intensive foraging;
introduction of bow
and arrow

increased reliance on
horticulture
supplemented by
foraging

intensive agriculture
supplemented by foraging
and horticulture

14 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Pre-Contact Overview

It is accepted by archaeologists that humans migrated to the Western Hemisphere many thousands
of years ago, but there is much debate about when humans actually arrived, and the route(s) by which they
traveled. Until relatively recently, it was commonly accepted that humans arrived in North America about
12,000 years ago. However, investigations at a number of Native American sites in North and South
Americas have produced radiocarbon dates predating 12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America
has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft
Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500 BC. Current research conducted at the Topper
Site in South Carolina indicates occupations dating between 15,000 to 19,000 (or more) years ago
(Goodyear 2005). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar dates. Debate
continues about the implications of sites with occupations predating 10,000 BC.

Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). In the past two decades, investigations at Paleoindian sites
have produced radiocarbon dates predating 12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America has been
dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in
Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500 BC. Current research conducted at the Topper Site indicates
occupations dating between 15,000 and 19,000 (or more) years ago (Goodyear 2005). 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 lanceolate-like
points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2005; Johnson 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; and McDonald
2000).

The major artifact marker for the Clovis period 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). Most 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.

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 has led some researchers to hypothesize other
avenues of New World migration (see 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 (see Stanford 2006). Coastal migration theories envision seafaring people using boats to make
the journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).

In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate
spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983). Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United
States (Ward and Davis 1999); this indicates 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 maintained to ensure adequate
arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).

O’Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
15 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, 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 megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on
smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been a factor.

Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Sites dating to this period are ubiquitous in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe and
McCormick 1970). Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures. Coe’s excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont established
a chronological sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. The Archaic period has been
divided into three subperiods: Early (8000 - 6000 BC), Middle (6000 - 3500 BC), and Late (3500 - 1000
BC) (Coe 1964). Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of
Palmer and Kirk Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic
corner notched points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g.,
LeCroy points), but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been
identified as representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1985). The Early
Archaic points of the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although
occasional chert, quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.

Claggett et al. (1982) use a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980), to classify
late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as “logistical.” Logistical task groups, in this definition, target
a particular resource or set of subsistence or technological resources for collection and use at a residential base
camp. Their analysis identifies an increase in residential mobility beginning in the Early Archaic and extending
into the Middle Archaic (Claggett et a1. 1982). Early Archaic peoples transitioned from logistical orientation
to foraging. Foraging refers to a generalized resource procurement strategy enacted in closer proximity to
a base camp. Subsistence remains recovered from Early Archaic sites in southern Virginia include fish,
turtle, turkey, small mammals, and deer, as well as a wide variety of nuts (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).

Sassaman (1993) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of increased
population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories; this increase in population led to increasing
social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled aggregation for mate exchange. In
Sassaman’s view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly expedient; this is reflected in an almost
exclusive use of local resources, especially lithic material. The appearance/introduction of Stanly points, a
broad-bladed stemmed form defines the transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod. These were followed
by Morrow Mountain points, which are characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered
from numerous small sites throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often
made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence.

The Late Archaic subperiod can be divided into two phases (Savannah River and Terminal Archaic
[Otarre phase]) and are represented by a gradual change in diagnostic projectile points and a slight shift in
settlement focus. The Savannah River phase (3,000 to 2,000 BC) is recognized by large, broad-bladed,
straight-stemmed points made of quartzite commonly known as the Savannah River or Appalachian Stemmed
points (Coe 1964; Purrington 1983). Steatite bowls, groundstone axes and gorgets, and other flaked stone
tools can also be attributed to this phase. Purrington (1983:125) states that “the remains of this phase are
among the most abundant in the Appalachian Summit which may suggest increased population density as well
as increased visibility of archaeological remains.” In the Great Smoky Mountains, Bass (1977) found
evidence of three Savannah River site categories: base camps in the major valleys; seasonally dispersed
smaller camps in coves and benches; and short term extractive sites on ridges and saddles, which were visited
16 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
from a valley base camp. In contrast, Purrington (1983:127-129) found that the Savannah River phase sites
of the upper Watauga Valley are less common in the flood plains than sites of the preceding phase.

The diagnostic artifact of the Otarre phase (2,000-1,000 BC) is the small to medium stemmed
projectile point, the Otarre Stemmed type. Keel (1976) identifies this type as exhibiting a wider range of
variability than Savannah River points, suggesting perhaps a greater localization of populations. Most of the
Late Archaic sites in the Great Smokey Mountains are located in the floodplains of large rivers near quartzite
outcrops. Quartzite was the predominant raw material for the production of Late Woodland projectile points
(Ward and Davis 1999). Savannah River phase settlement and subsistence patterns continue in the Otarre
phase (Purrington 1983:130-131). Evidence suggests that the Otarre phase is a legitimate temporal division
based on minor stylistic changes in projectile points which occurred in the absence of major cultural shifts.

Subsistence during the Late Archaic focused on hunting, fishing, and gathering of vast amounts of
acorn and hickory nuts. Fish, turtle, and other riverine sources were important parts of the Late Archaic diet.
By the end of the Late Archaic period, squash, gourds, sunflower, maygrass, and chenopodium were being
domesticated (Ward and Davis 1999).

Woodland Period (1000 BC - 1600 AD). A transition between the predominantly preceramic Archaic
cultures and the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy
triangular point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Unlike Oliver, Miller
(1962) notes little change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland transition other than
the addition of pottery. Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between Archaic and Woodland
occupations, also describes little technological or subsistence change other than ceramics.

The Woodland period of this area was a time of increasing cultural diversity stimulated by ideas from
outside the region (Ward and Davis 1999). The Early Woodland period is characterized by the Swannanoa
phase (1,000-300 BC). The pottery series from this phase, as defined by Keel (1976), has crushed quartz or
coarse sand temper, and relatively thick walls. Small, stemmed projectile points called Swannanoa Stemmed,
Plott Stemmed, and Gypsy points are found in the mountains at this time. These points are stratigraphically
associated with a larger triangular point type called “Transylvania Triangular” that appears to be in
connection with the introduction of the bow and arrow during the Swannanoa phase. Available settlement
data also suggests a continuation of Archaic lifestyles (Ward and Davis 1999).

Two distinct phases of occupation are recognized for the Middle Woodland in the mountains of North
Carolina: the Pigeon phase (300 BC – 200 AD) and the Connestee phase (200 AD – 800 AD). Pigeon phase
pottery is identified by the use of fairly large amounts of crushed quartz temper, surface treatments of check
stamping (in addition to plain, simple stamped, brushed, and complicated stamped treatments), the use of
tetrapodal supports on the vessel base, and an “iridescent sheen” on the interior surface (Ward and Davis
1999). Vessel forms include simple bowls and necked jars. Small side-notched and triangular projectile
points, expanded-center bar gorgets, grooved axes, celts, flake scrapers, ceramic popes, and a variety of
hammerstones are also probably associated with the Pigeon phase (Ward and Davis 1999). There may have
been an increasing reliance on horticulture resulting in a shift toward greater use of fertile bottomlands
(Purrington 1983). Connestee series pottery consists of thin-walled vessels that are fine sand tempered with
an occasional crushed quartz fragment. Vessel forms include flat-bottomed jars that sometimes have small
tetrapodal supports, and bowls and jars without supports. The surface of these pots is usually plain, brushed
or simple stamped, but also include cord marking, fabric marking, check stamping, and complicated stamping
(Ward and Davis 1999). Other artifacts from the Connestee phase include clay figurines, stone blades, and
copper sheets and beads.

Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period so subsistence strategies remained focused
on hunting animals and gathering wild plants. In the study area, the Late Woodland subperiod (1000 – 1600
17 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
AD) is represented by the Uwharrie and Donnaha Phases. The Uwharrie Phase projectile points have small
triangular forms. Uwharrie ceramics are heavily tempered with crushed quartz and predominantly net
impressed with scraped interiors (Eastman 1991). Woodall (1988) notes an increased emphasis on cooking
and the use of ceramic decoration to differentiate social standing at Yadkin village sites he investigated on
the Yadkin River, east of the project area. The Donnaha Phase appears to be related to the Dan River Phase
of the North-Central Piedmont, as seen through the artifact assemblage, especially in regard to the shell and
bone tools recovered (Ward and Davis 1999).

Agriculture was initially a supplement to Native American subsistence strategies during this period
but became increasingly important over time. Corn, beans, squash, sunflowers, and fruit were cultivated
with the aid of stone hoes and wooden implements, and settlement patterns indicate conditions favorable to
agriculture were significant to decision-making i.e. broad floodplains (Hantman and Klein 1992; Ward 1983;
Ward and Davis1993).

The Mississippian Period (1100 – 1838 AD). Overall, the Mississippian Period is characterized by
complicated stamped ceramics, small triangular projectile points, a reliance on farming, and elaborate
ceremonialism. Sites from this time frame include large village sites, often with at least one earthen mound,
and small, scattered farmsteads. Site locations tend to be located on flood plains and rises overlooking river
and stream valleys (Hargrove 1991; Keel 1976; May 1989; Oliver 1992; and Ward 1965).

The Pisgah phase shows all the characteristics of the South Appalachian Mississippian complex:
maize agriculture, platform mounds, earth lodges, and palisaded villages (Ferguson 1971; Moore 1986:74).
Early in the phase, settlement was apparently dispersed and minimally hierarchical. As the Pisgah phase
progressed, major ceremonial centers, large flood plain villages, and perimeter hamlets appeared in a more
hierarchical settlement system (Purrington 1983:147).

The Pisgah phase in the study region is recognized by its distinctive ceramic assemblage. Rectilinear
complicated stamping dominates the grit tempered series, and linear punctations on collared rims are
additional decorative modes. Pisgah vessels commonly exhibit lugs and loop handles, and elaborate rim
treatments (i.e., collared rims with punctations, incisions, and castellations) (Dickens 1976; Ward and Davis
1999). The diagnostic projectile point of the phase is the Pisgah triangular arrow point. A wide variety of
ideo-technic items are encountered on Pisgah sites, including stone and shell items of the Southeastern
Ceremonial Complex (Purrington 1983).

The Qualla phase encompasses the protohistoric and historic Cherokee manifestations of the Carolina
mountains. The Early Qualla Phase (1450 - 1650 AD) preceded the time of continuous European contact.
The Late Qualla Phase (1650 - 1838 AD) begins with continuous European contact and ends in 1838 with
the removal of many of the Cherokees from their homeland to Oklahoma on what would later be named the
Trail of Tears (Ward and Davis 1999).

Generally, it is agreed that the Qualla phase represents a direct, in situ evolution of the preceding
Pisgah phase (Dickens 1976, 1979, 1986; Moore 1986). Aboriginal material culture of this phase includes
Madison equilateral triangular arrow points and a ceramic assemblage resembling the classic Lamar. The
Qualla ceramics are characterized by a gritty paste, and surface decorations including complicated stamping,
bold incising, check stamping, and brushing (Egloff 1967). Subsistence was dependent on corn, beans, and
squash agriculture supplemented by hunting and gathering of indigenous plants. Sites are generally clustered
in major river flood plains, with limited use of slope or ridge areas. A hierarchical settlement pattern was
apparently in place, with mound centers, major villages, and dispersed hamlets present (Ward and Davis
1999).

18 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Historic Indian / Protohistoric Period

The first European exploration along the coast of North Carolina was in 1524 by Giovanni da
Verrazano, who sailed under the flag of France. He commented on the Native Americans he encountered
but made no attempt at settlement in the area. In 1526, Luis Vasquez de Ayllon led a Spanish expedition
attempting to establish a settlement near the River Jordan, which is believed to be in the vicinity of the Cape
Fear River. His party included approximately 500 men, women, and children, a few slaves, and 90 horses.
Bad weather, hunger, and malaria took a toll on the settlers. Upon Ayllon’s death, the 150 surviving settlers
returned to Santo Domingo.

Spain initiated the exploration of the southeastern United States in the hopes of preserving their claims
to American lands west of the Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation. Hernando de Soto (1539-1543)
and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of North
Carolina during the mid-sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages near
the present- day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Moore 2006).

Spanish exploration of western North Carolina began in the middle sixteenth century. In 1540,
Hernando de Soto entered the area during his march through the Southeast. Swanton (1979:110) believed
that Guasili, an Indian town visited by de Soto, was located on the Hiwassee River at the mouth of Peachtree
Creek, near Murphy (Cherokee County), North Carolina. More recently, Hudson et al. (1984:74) have
determined that Guasili was located near present-day Marshall, in Madison County. It is generally believed
that the inhabitants of this town may have been Cherokee. The Native Americans furnished de Soto and his
party with various food items, including 300 dogs for the men to eat, and corn for the horses. In 1567, Juan
Pardo and his party passed through the project region, following much the same path as de Soto’s expedition
(Hudson 1990). Recent work at the Burke Site in Burke County has identified a sixteenth century Native
American site with a Spanish component that is believed to be associated with Pardo’s explorations.

Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not be sustained despite their best attempts to establish a
permanent presence with interior outposts and coastal settlements. Mounting pressure from hostile Native
Americans and English privateers also contributed to their withdrawal to St. Augustine in 1587 (South 1980).
Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought disastrous effects on contemporary Native American
peoples, causing populations to collapsed and entire communities to disappear.

Sir Walter Raleigh heavily promoted England’s interest in the New World. In 1585, Raleigh used
his position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I to secure backing to outfit an English attempt at colonizing
the Atlantic coast (Powell 1989). Although this effort failed, Raleigh’s single-minded ambition led to the
establishment of a colony on the James River in 1607 (Noël Hume 1994).

The first years of settlement at Jamestown were hampered by disastrous mismanagement resulting
in starvation, loss of life, and hostilities with neighboring Powhatan. In 1624 the Crown revoked the
Virginia Company’s charter and established a royal government (Noël Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the
civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, these authorities showed little interest in
the area that was to become North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period traders, hunters, trappers,
rogues, and tax evaders began living in the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina
(Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-
reliant.

The project area falls within Cherokee territory. From earliest European contact, the Cherokee
were divided into three related subgroups: Upper (or Overhill), Middle, and Lower Cherokee. These
subgroups are often referred to as “Towns” and are differentiated primarily by geographical area and minor
dialectal differences (Mooney 1982; Swanton 1979; Williams 1930). Cherokee towns appeared in both
19 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
dispersed and nucleated forms (Goodwin 1977). Dispersed settlements sometimes consisted of dwellings
stretched for miles along rivers and streams. These settlements were generally attached to a “mother” town
or ceremonial center. Nucleated types comprised houses and communal fields confined to a smaller area,
situated close to a shared public space. Goodwin (1977) proposed that the earlier preference for nucleated
settlement was eroded over time due to changes in the Cherokee political structure which resulted from
frequent trading with Europeans. However, to date, archaeological surveys have not provided definitive
support for Goodwin’s hypothesis that the Cherokees exhibited a preference for nucleated settlement
patterns prior to European contact. The locations and spatial patterning of towns seem to have varied over
time, especially during the historic period, due to such factors as abandonment and resettlement, merging,
and separation of adjoining towns (Goodwin 1977).

The Cherokee, members of the Iroquoian linguistic group, had a highly developed social and
political organization, and lived in villages and on farmsteads occupying the most fertile land along the river
valleys. These settlements were connected by numerous paths following creek and river valleys and ridge
tops. The Cherokee occupied this land intermittently until the early to middle eighteenth century. The
Cherokee village of Cheoah was located at present day Robbinsville south of the project area.

Continued and increasing contact between the Cherokee and Europeans had varying effects on
Cherokee lifeways. Prior to contact, Cherokee settlement and economy reflected Mississippian patterns.
During the early eighteenth century, horses, cattle, and hogs were introduced to Cherokee life, either through
trade or by theft from French outposts or English settlers (Corkran 1967). Hunting continued to be strongly
emphasized, primarily due to increasing demand for deerskin.

Historic Period

Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and distributed rewards to loyal Royalist supporters.
Seven supporters were awarded the charter to establish a proprietary colony south of Virginia. The boundaries
of this deed were set to include the Albemarle Sound settlement of Charles Town south to the frontier of
Spanish-held La Florida. Proprietors maintained control over a single Carolina until 1712, when the colonies
were separated. After the Yamasee War, the colonists pleaded with the crown to take over the settlement of
the colony. The proprietors subsequently forfeited control to the Crown. That divestment forced the
Proprietors’ sale of their North Carolina charter to King George II in 1729 (Powell 1989).

John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project area.
In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the Pacific
Ocean (Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South Carolina.
During this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Saura, Catawba and Waxhaw.
The Catawba Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South Carolina.
Inspired by Lederer, John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South Carolina through the North Carolina
Piedmont to Pamlico Sound. Lawson’s 1700-1701 excursion followed a well-established Native American
trading path that passed near present day Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967). Lawson’s
journey took him through Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would soon come
into close contact with European colonists.

The principle economic focus of the Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade. This
trade revolved around the exchange of European manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and slaves. It drew
Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing intertribal hostilities.
Itinerant traders based in Charleston (South Carolina), and Virginia vied for clients among the North Carolina
Piedmont settlements (Oberg and Moore 2017; Powell 1989).

20 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
The British developed trade relations with the Cherokee during the late seventeenth century. English
traders operating out of Virginia and Charleston developed an ongoing trade with the Cherokees by the
second decade of the eighteenth century. Private traders and British companies had established themselves
among the Cherokee, trading guns, ammunition, rum, and trinkets for animal hides. The majority of these
traders lived among the Cherokee, engineered trade agreements, interpreted messages from both sides, and
took Cherokee wives.

Severe fighting between North Carolinian settlers and Tuscarora Indians broke out in 1711 after
the death of the colony’s Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of the Tuscarora. Despite developing
conflicts between Native American groups and European powers, ties between the Cherokee and the British
remained strong throughout the early eighteenth century. Cherokee from the Lower Towns (along the
Savannah and Keowee Rivers, now in Georgia and South Carolina) were involved to a limited extent in the
Yamassee War (1715), aligning with the Catawba in attacks on western Carolina settlements. The war
ended in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. By 1716, the Cherokee had been
persuaded to renew their alliance with the British and to defend border areas against French incursions
(Milling 1969:270). The strain on the colony’s financial conditions persisted until the Lords Proprietors were
forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989).

As the number of settlers began to multiply in the Northeast, many began to look to the wilderness
of the South and the West to build new lives. German and Scotch-Irish settlers first walked the Indian
footpaths connecting present-day Pennsylvania and Georgia (Rouse 2001). Pilot Mountain in Surry County
was named Jomeokee by the Saura, meaning “great guide” or “pilot.” Northern immigrants who traveled the
Great Wagon Road witnessed the mountain as they traveled into the North Carolina colony.

In 1744, a series of treaties allowed the colonies to formally take over the trail, then known as the
Warrior Path, from the Five Nations of the Iroquois (NCOAH 2004; Rouse 2001). Dubbed the Great Wagon
Road, settlers from northern colonies used the route to populate the farmlands and new towns of the Carolinas
and Georgia well into the 1800's. The varied European interests competing for territory and the expansion
of Europeans into Native American territory escalated into the French and Indian War which lasted from
1754-1763. North Carolina supplied men to fight in Virginia and New York but later the troops were needed
to defend North Carolina settlers from the Cherokee. The Cherokee were initially allied with the colony of
North Carolina and helped fight the French and the Shawnee in exchange for supplies and fortifications but
grew dissatisfied and angry with their treatment during the campaign and turned on the English. Eventually
the conflict ended with the French surrendering to the British and many of the refugees who had fled to
North Carolina stayed and settled (Cashion 1979).

In 1751 “sixteen principal traders made the regular journey into Cherokee lands, and by 1756 over
150 traders and pack-horsemen sought the lucrative Cherokee trade” (Goodwin 1977:99). Maintenance of
a strong trade relationship with the Cherokee served a number of British ends. In addition to personal gain
for trading companies, continuing commerce with Cherokee groups facilitated westward colonial expansion,
and thwarted similar plans by the Spanish and French (Clayton 1988:4). Individual efforts in trade led to
establishment of licensing procedures, and in 1717 the Cherokee signed their first treaty with the British
Colonial governor of South Carolina (Royce 1975:144). Minimal cessions agreed upon by the Cherokee in
this treaty foreshadowed their removal from the Southeast a century later.

A mistaken attack on a Cherokee group en route to support the British against the French and
Shawnee led to armed conflict between the British and Cherokee in the late 1750s and early 1760s. In 1756,
an under-provisioned Cherokee force was forced to steal horses and food from backcountry Virginians, who
retaliated by attacking the group, killing several warriors and receiving a bounty for the scalps (Woodward
1963:71-74). This act led to retaliatory raids by the Cherokee on settlements in Virginia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina in 1759. The British responded by sending an armed force under Colonel Montgomery to
21 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
relieve the frontier forts and attack Cherokee towns. Frizzell (1987:39) reports on these British attacks on
the Cherokee:

In the summer of 1760 a combined British and provincial army burned the Lower
Towns...the British government dispatched Colonel James Grant in 1761 with 2,600
British regulars, colonial militia, and Indian auxiliaries to reduce the Middle
Settlements...The Cherokee War was a catastrophe for the tribe. The Lower and
Middle Towns were in ashes, and the people fled into the forests or to the Overhill
Towns for safety...Forced into submission, a weakened Cherokee people found
themselves unable to offer concerted resistance against white expansion until 1775.

The 1760 expedition against the Cherokees, led by Colonel Archibald Montgomery, was repulsed
by an estimated force of 600 Cherokees on a plain near the Little Tennessee River, south of present-day
Franklin (McRae 1993:37). Grant’s 1761 expedition diary provides some information about towns near the
study area, and their estimated populations prior to their destruction by his army. Grant’s troops passed
through a deserted town two miles north of Echoy called “Tasse,” then moved north and camped at Nequasee
(present-day Franklin). Grant’s intelligence report advised that it was a town of about “120 Gun Men,” but
it was also deserted. Grant observed there what he described as a “Town House which is a large Dome,
surrounded with resting places made of Kane & pretty enough” (Evans and King 1977:284). A large raiding
party was sent out to Hyoree, where they found twelve inhabitants. They then marched three miles from
camp to Wattoga, where they “pull’d up all the Corn, cut down the fruit Trees, & burn’d the Houses, in
number about Fifty” (Evans and King 1977: 285). Grant had been informed that Wattoga was inhabited by
about 100 gun men. A party sent out from there burned two “new settled Villages called Neowee and
Canuga” (Evans and King 1977:285). Two days later they marched on Cowee, three miles from Wattoga,
said to have been “the largest of these towns, & may [have contained] about 140 Gun Men” (Evans and King
1977:297).

The Regulator movement began in the late 1760s due to backcountry farmers’ frustrations with
county government’s administration. The majority of the county’s population were engaged in agriculture and
resented the rapid ascension of lawyers and “Scotch” merchants to positions of influence over the county’s
court. General dissatisfaction with newcomers’ meddling coalesced into a backcountry crusade against a
corrupt appointee of Governor Dobbs and frequent office holder, Edward Fanning (Whittenburg 1977).
Backcountry “Regulators” obstructed sheriffs from tax collection and prevented courts from operating.
Tensions between the Regulators and the colonial administration began to boil, bordering on conflict. The
increased prominence of the Baptist movement, which had popular appeal with the Regulators because of
its democratic religious policies, provided a divisive threat to the traditional Anglican beliefs held by many
British Tories, paralleling the mounting political discontent (Powell 1989). This ultimately culminated
in the start of the War of Regulation, in which the Regulators mounted a rebellion against the North
Carolina colonial government in an effort to rid the colony of British oppression.

Hillsborough riots in October 1770 resulted in an escalation of the dispute. Led by Governor William
Tryon, an armed expedition of an eastern county militia routed the Regulators on May 16, 1771 at Alamance.
The skirmish took place along Alamance Creek, just a few short miles south of the city of Burlington in
Randolph County. The North Carolina provincial militia put down the rebellion, leading to the end of the War
of Regulation. However, these hostilities between the Regulators and British rule are considered an early step
down the road to the American Revolution (Powell 1989).

Less than four years after the battle of Alamance, the Atlantic colonies allied themselves against King
George’s government. North Carolinians were divided between the Tory and Whig causes. Tories supported
royal prerogatives and many former Regulators suspicious of local authority were assumed to be sympathetic
to the Tory cause.
22 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
In 1776, English botanist William Bartram traveled through the southeast and visited the re-inhabited
Cherokee Middle Towns. James Adair, an Irish trader, traveled among the Cherokee during the same period
as Bartram. Bartram and Adair’s accounts provide information on Cherokee agricultural practices and
products of the period. Bartram indicates that almost the entire western expanse of the Little Tennessee River
flood plain in the Middle Towns was under cultivation. He described the areas along the road between the
first trader’s house and Echoe as consisting of “mostly . . . fields and plantations, the soil incredibly fertile”
(Van Doren 1928:285). In Wattoga, Bartram observed the following:

All before me and on every side, appeared little plantations of young Corn, Beans,
&c. divided from each other by narrow strips or borders of grass, which marked
the bounds of each one’s property, their habitation standing in the midst (Van
Doren 1928:285).

He was greeted there by a Cherokee man, whom he described as the chief of Wattoga, who served
him a meal of sodden venison, hot corn cakes, and a liquor made of boiled hominy. After the meal Bartram
and the chief smoked tobacco in a shared pipe (Van Doren 1928). He recounted that, for the last five miles
to Cowee, the roadside consisted of “old plantations, now under grass, but which appeared to have been
planted last season: the soil exceedingly fertile, loose, black, deep, and fat” (Van Doren 1928:286). According
to Adair, the Cherokees cultivated hemp and wine grapes, and that good hops grew wild near Nequasee
(Williams 1986). Adair also mentioned that the Cherokees had, at one time, raised hogs and poultry, as well
as many horses (Williams 1986).

Bartram reported that traders were located near Nequasee and at Cowee. Even though the Cherokees
in these Middle Towns had accepted the white traders encountered by Bartram in 1775, some of their
neighbors, it seems, had rejected other traders. In Cowee, Bartram encountered a white trader, an Irishman
named Mr. Galahan, “who had been many years a trader in this country” (Van Doren 1928:286). He
indicated that Galahan was well-liked and protected by the Cherokees, even though other traders “have been
ruined, their property seized, and themselves driven out of the country or slain by the injured, provoked
natives” (Van Doren 1928:286).

At the outset of the American Revolution the Cherokees were allies of the British, which led to four
expeditions against their towns in the year 1776 alone (Swanton 1979:112). In what is now Murphy,
Rutherford established his headquarters and organized soldiers from South Carolina and Virginia to crush
the Cherokee. In the summer of 1776, General Griffith Rutherford led an American force along the Little
Tennessee River. They entered Wattoga from the north in September 1776, and proceeded to destroy crops
and houses there, and in Nequasee, Etchoe, Cowee, and Cullasaja. All of these towns were deserted when
the troops arrived (McRae 1993). Ten days later, a South Carolina militia force commanded by Colonel
Andrew Williamson, which had been destroying the lower towns, arrived at Nequasee and marched to meet
Rutherford near present day Murphy (McRae 1993). As a result of these attacks, Cherokees from the Lower
and Middle Towns scattered to the woods and to the Overhill Towns, which were destroyed by American
militia in 1777. Hostilities between the Cherokees and Americans officially ceased with the signing of the
Tellico Treaty of 1794.

After the American Revolution, Federal government acculturation programs designed to reduce the
Cherokees’ desire for large tracts of land failed to reach the Middle Towns (Riggs 1988). According to Riggs
(1988:12) “the Cherokees closest to the study area (the Middle Towns) during the first quarter of the
nineteenth century may be characterized as a full-blood, traditionalist enclave.” Their economic condition
was relatively poorer than the mixed-bloods, and other Cherokees whose homes bordered on, or were among
whites, and they followed more closely the old Cherokee lifeways.

23 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
As the threat of Indian raids lessened, more settlers began arriving in western North Carolina.
Because of poor transportation between the foothills and the coast, and because so many families had ties to
Virginia and Pennsylvania, early trade probably moved back and forth to the north over worn wagon trails.
In the years immediately following the Revolutionary War, the foothills consisted of a sparse pattern of small,
subsistence farms. Class distinctions among the population were few, although some owned more land and
more fertile soil, particularly in the river bottoms. Small, independent farmers predominated, which suited
some governmental leaders who wished to see North Carolina avoid the bitter class rivalries taking place in
neighboring South Carolina.

Of the settlers who did build homesteads in the project vicinity, many were soon lured westward by
the promise of the frontier. By the war’s end, the frontier was no longer in the foothills of the Blue Ridge
Mountains, but further west in Kentucky and Tennessee. Soon, however, that area would also be settled, and
a new frontier would arise as pioneers pushed the border relentlessly westward in their hunger for cheaper
and better land. One prevalent cause for settlers to uproot themselves was the erosion created by their own
farming practices. Land devoid of topsoil and scarred by ditches and gullies quickly became common in the
foothills. When farmers cleared trees, which they often did to sell on the open market, they diminished the
timber stands protecting the rich soils from erosion. Farming loosened soils in the river-bottoms where nature
sped the erosion process.

The Cherokees ceded lands to the United States in a treaty in 1798. This resulted in the survey of
the Meigs-Freeman Line in 1802, establishing a legal boundary between the Cherokee Nation and the state
of North Carolina. The line lay to the east of the Toxaway River and east of Wolf Mountain. It ran
northwesterly across Tannasee Creek, Wolf Creek, and the easternmost drainages of the Tuckaseegee River.
The Meigs-Freeman Line lay to the east of the forks of the Tuckaseegee (Blethen and Wood 1987; Petersen
1981; Royce 1975; Smathers 1938).

In 1819, a United States/Cherokee treaty acquired land for white settlers within the Cherokee territory
by offering individual Cherokees opportunities to register for 640-acre reservations within the boundary. All
remaining land was transferred to the government for allotment to settlers.

In 1820, Captain Robert Love served as chief of a survey party that mapped the new territory gained
from the Cherokees. This survey did not take into account reservations held by the Cherokee citizens under
the terms of the treaty. As a consequence, many Cherokee lost their land and were forced to relocate (Teresita
Press [TP] 2007). The Federal authorities were surprised by the number of applications for tracts received
from Cherokees in the Middle Towns. Those who did not apply for land were forced to move to what was
left of the Cherokee land in the Qualla area. Riggs (1988:14) found that:

Many nonreservees refused to leave the ceded area, but most were later forced to
remove due to harassment from white settlers. Those who removed were entitled to
reimbursement for property improvements such as buildings, cleared land and fruit
trees which they were forced to abandon. Two hundred heads of Cherokee
households in the study area entered claims for such abandoned improvements.

In 1835, the treaty of New Echota was signed by a minority faction of the Cherokee. For a payment
of $15 million, these individuals agreed to leave the Southeast and resettle in the Oklahoma Territory. As
North Carolina was one of the most densely populated regions of the Cherokee Nation, it was believed to be
an area of potential violent resistance following the ratification of the treaty (Duncan and Riggs 2003). In
present day Murphy, Fort Butler (originally called Camp Huntington) was established in 1836 by the military
to keep order in the area. Fort Butler later became the headquarters of the Eastern Division of the U.S. Army
of the Cherokee Nation, the military force charged with forcing Cherokee emigration (Duncan and Riggs
2003). The “Trail of Tears” followed a pathway through the town of Murphy (Town of Murphy 2009).
24 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Small groups of the Cherokee, including the Qualla Town Indians of western North Carolina, resisted
removal and were later designated the Eastern Band of Cherokee (Finger 1984). With the assistance of
William Thomas and others, the Eastern Band acquired 73,000 acres, which came to be known as the Qualla
Boundary (Finger 1984). The Eastern Band continues to reside in this vicinity, particularly in the town of
Cherokee.

Because of the mountainous terrain, established trade routes made markets in Augusta and Savannah,
Georgia more accessible to western North Carolina farmers than were the eastern markets of their own state
(Medford 1961:87). Mid-nineteenth century farms in the region typically consisted of at least 100 acres;
however, only a fraction of each farm was cultivated. Subsistence -oriented mountain farmers generally
cultivated 15 to 30 acres at a time. A small mountain farm had only a few cattle and hogs. Livestock grazed
en masse in mountain forests.

Slave owners were few in western North Carolina, and most owners only had one or two. The
economy of the area was not based on large farms or plantations requiring a large labor force. As a result,
the relative social status of the residents was not dependent on the number of slaves owned. The financial
difficulties of local planters were quickly overshadowed by distant battles in Virginia. Although no major
battles were ever fought in Graham County during the Civil War, the area was affected by raiders and
became a haven for deserters. The county courthouse was burned by Union raiders late in the war (Lewis
2009).

After the Civil War, the trend toward small subsistence farms continued. “By 1880, Appalachia
contained a greater concentration of noncommercial family farms than any other area of the nation” (Southern
Appalachian Center 1979:35). Agricultural schedules from the 1880 Federal census recorded farm owners,
tenants, and sharecroppers, acres of land cultivated, meadows, and woodland-forest. These data can be useful
in reconstructing past land use patterns in the region. Large uncultivated woodland tracts on steep slopes and
ridges provided grazing areas for livestock. Sheep were raised on rocky hillside meadow lands, and hogs
were allowed to graze in oak, chestnut, and hickory woodlands. The Southern Appalachians were a major
hog producing area before the coming of the timber industry and the purchase of woodlands by private
corporations (SAC 1979).

Following the removal of the Cherokee, settlers began increasingly moving into the extreme western
portion of North Carolina. Graham County was established in 1872 from the northeastern portion of
Cherokee County largely to accommodate these new settlers. It was named for William A. Graham, former
Governor of North Carolina. In 1883, Robbinsville was established as the county seat (Corbitt 2000).

Construction of railroads after 1880 and the advent of extractive industries (mining and logging)
brought on the industrial period and a transformation of the traditional economy (Wood 2011). In 1884, the
Authorized Visitors Guide for the North Carolina State Exposition listed 35 mica mines in the state. It was
speculated that mica “yielded more money than any other metal in Western North Carolina in the 1880's”
(Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:352). One mica mine in Mitchell County, the “Clarissey,” yielded fine
grade mica to a depth of over 300 feet (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973). Corundum was found in
western North Carolina in 1870 and rubies in 1893. Along with rubies, the state geologist found sapphire,
aquamarine, beryl, amethyst, and garnet. None of these were found in large quantities, and the search for
them was not worth the expense. Gemstone mining was abandoned until the advent of the tourist industry
in the twentieth century.

The increases in industry were closely tied to the improvement of transportation throughout the state.
The Western North Carolina Railroad completed its rail line to Old Fort, just east of Asheville, in 1869 (Zuber
1969). Financial hardships related to the complexities of crossing the mountains to Asheville forced the
company into bankruptcy in 1875 (Zuber 1969). Following the bankruptcy of the Western North Carolina
25 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Railroad, the state bought out the company’s interests, and, using convict labor, completed the rail line
through Asheville in 1880 (Zuber 1969). It wasn’t until 1888 that when the Murphy Depot of the Western
North Carolina Railroad was opened (Lewis 2009). The railroad not only connected the east and west, it
meant that products such as lumber and iron ore could be easily transported.

Early logging in the mountains was characterized by selective cutting of the most valuable trees
(walnut, yellow poplar, and ash) located along easily accessible streams. Most of the timber cut in the 1880s
and 1890s was felled by farm families; logging supplemented family income. Eller (1982:88-91) reports that
“mountain men had always engaged in seasonal work in the woods– hunting, clearing fields, cutting fence
posts, and the like.” The forest was an important factor, influencing settlement patterns in the mountains.
Horace Kephart (1976:34) stated:

Every man in the big woods is a jack-of-all trades. His skill in extemporizing
utensils, and even crude machines, out of the trees that grow around him, is of no
mean order.

Kephart (1976:34) also states that about two-thirds of the residents of the mountains owned their own homes
while the remainder were renters or squatters. This latter group was “permitted to occupy ground for the
sake of reporting trespass and putting out fires” on lands which belonged to Northern timber companies.

The great timber boom in the mountains lasted from 1890 until 1920, during which time Northern
lumber companies acquired large tracts of standing timber. These timber companies had a great impact on
the mountain people. By 1900, steam sawmills were in operation in the Southern Highlan ds. Eller
(1982:103-104) states that “the manufacture of lumber and timber products had become the second leading
industry in North Carolina, with 1,770 establishments employing some 11,751 workers.” For many Eastern
Cherokees, the timber industry was a huge source of income. However, according to a federal survey in the
early twentieth century, large scale logging operations resulted in erosion of hillside farms (Van Noppen and
Van Noppen 1973).

One observer noted in 1910 that in removing timber, loggers paid no attention to young growth,
leaving piles of brush, bark, sawdust, and the tops of trees strewn throughout the forest (Van Noppen and Van
Noppen 1973). The dry brush caught fire, burning thousands of acres of woodland. Timbering and
associated tannery operations were devastating the forests (Eller 1982). Pressure from conservation groups
led to the passage of the National Forest Reserve Act in 1891 and the Weeks Act in 1911. The U.S. Forest
Service secured approval to purchase units of the Appalachian Forest Reserve, which included the Nantahala
and Pisgah areas of western North Carolina (Eller 1982). It was the practice of the lumber companies to set
up workmen’s camps which accommodated 50 to 75 men (Bell 1987:162). Crosscut saws were used to fell
trees which were pulled by horses to narrow gauge railroad tracks

In the 1920s, loggers’ and mill workers’ wages were generally $15 to $16 a week; skilled workers
earned more. Bell (1987:162) reports that, despite the flush times of the 1920s, lumber companies generally
experienced financial difficulties, and, beginning in 1929, the Depression caused additional severe problems.

During the Depression, Federal stimulus programs greatly helped the area’s economy. The
Tennessee Valley Authority constructed numerous dams and reservoirs, including the Santeetlah Dam on
the nearby Cheoah River and the Fontana Reservoir. The Civilian Conservation Corps provided employment
for area resident’s constructing recreational facilities and replanting trees as well as building infrastructure
for the newly created Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Wood 2011).

World War II affected Graham and the surrounding counties as it did much of the nation. The
population of the area declined and has only had slight growth since then. Large numbers of able-bodied
26 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
men joined the military and women began taking over jobs outside of the home. In the mid-nineteenth
century, Northern investors such as G. W. Vanderbilt, J. F. Hayes, and J. Silverstein started the great timber
boom in western North Carolina. Silverstein established a tannery and the Gloucester Lumber Company (Van
Noppen and Van Noppen 1973). They were followed in the early twentieth century by industries, such as
the Alcoa Aluminum Industry, which harnessed the steeply falling rivers for hydroelectric power (Brewer
and Brewer 1975:246).

As of 2000, the population of Graham County was 620, making Graham the third least populous
county in the state. While the county still relies on wood products for income, m uch of the county
is geared towards tourism, providing goods and services to support that industry. The Appalachian Trail runs
through the county and the Cherohala Skyway, once a Native American Trading route, is now a destination
for scenic mountain driving (Wood 2011). The three large lakes of Graham County (Cheoah, Fontana, and
Santeetlah Lakes), the numerous rivers and streams, and the Nantahala National Forest are strong draws for
campers, hikers, and sportsmen. Motorcycle enthusiasts are also frequent visitors to the county, riding the
many mountainous roads, including the famous “Tail of the Dragon.”

27 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Chapter 3. Results of the Investigation
Background Research Results

Archaeological background research was conducted at the North Carolina site files located at the
Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. No previously recorded archaeological sites are present in
the survey area. Eleven archaeological sites have been recorded within 1.0-mile (1.6 km) of the project area
(Figure 3.1; Table 3.1). Sites 31GH36 through 31GH39 were all recorded in 1964 by representatives of the
University of North Carolina. None of these sites were formally delineated or assessed for possible National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. The remaining sites were all recorded by United States
Forest Service personnel. None of these sites will be affected by the proposed stream restoration activities.

Figure 3.1. Map showing previously recorded archaeological sites in the project vicinity (2000
Robbinsville, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).

28 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Table 3.1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within 1.0 Mile (1.6-km) of the Survey Area.
Site Number Description NRHP Status
31GH36 Early Archaic lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH37 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH38 Middle Archaic lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH39 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH198 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH514 Unknown Prehistoric artifact scatter Not Eligible
31GH515 Middle Archaic-Middle Woodland artifact scatter,
20th century house site
Unassessed
31GH516 Early 20th century still site Not Eligible
31GH517 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter, 19th-20th century
house site
Unassessed

A review of records on file with the Survey and Planning Department identified one historic
resource recorded within 1.0-mile (1.6-km) of the survey area (see Figure 3.1). This resource, GH0049, is
the A.M. Odom House and is no longer standing.

Archaeological Survey Results

The project Area of Potential Effect (APE) was surveyed with 20-meter interval shovel testing.
Areas that had surface visibility were also visually inspected. The entire APE was walked over, and
supplemental shovel tests were excavated when deemed necessary. In the southern portion of the APE are
several small areas with standing water. In the wooded southeastern portion of the APE, steep slopes were
present and recently bulldozed tracks traversed the area (Figure 3.2). Several rubble piles were located
along the northern boundary of the APE that appeared to be the remains of smaller, modern outbuildings
(Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4).

A total of 64 shovel test locations were excavated in the project area. Shovel tests were not
excavated in areas with standing water (see Figure 3.2). The remainder of the survey area received 20-meter
interval coverage. In addition to the transect shovel tests that were excavated near the rubble piles, five
additional shovel tests were excavated; no artifacts were recovered. Shovel tests near the wetlands in the
southern portion of the APE generally exposed soil profiles comprised of 10 to 15 centimeters of dark
brown (10YR4/3) silty loam overlying strong brown (7.5YR5/6) loamy clay. These shovel tests often began
filling with water before subsoil was reached (Figure 3.5). Across the survey area, two different soil profiles
were exposed. One profile consisted of approximately 10 to 20 centimeters of dark brown (10YR4/3) sandy
loam overlying strong brown (7.5YR5/6) loamy clay (Figure 3.6). The other profile was comprised of
approximately 10 to 20 centimeters of dark brown (10YR4/3) sandy loam overlying rock (Figure 3.7).
These two soil profiles encountered consistently throughout the entire APE.

No new archaeological sites were located during this investigation. However, one of the
outbuildings shown on the 1935 topographic map along the southern boundary of the APE is still standing.
This building is rectangular in shape and constructed of concrete block with a sheet metal roof (Figure 3.8).
No artifacts were recovered in association with this building, so it was not documented as an archaeological
resource. This building will not be impacted by the proposed restoration activities.

29 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.2. Aerial view showing bulldozer disturbance and rubble piles in the project tract.

30 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.3. View of rubble piles, facing west.

31 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.4. View of rubbles piles, facing north.

32 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.5. Shovel test profile typical of the wetland area, facing north.

33 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.6. Representative shovel test profile from the APE, terminating in loamy clay.

34 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.7. Representative shovel test profile from the APE, terminating in
rock.

35 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.8. Outbuilding shown on topographic maps.

Summary and Recommendations

In January of 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. conducted an archaeological
survey of the approximately 20-acre (8.1 ha) APE for the restoration of East Buffalo Creek in Graham
County, North Carolina. No previously recorded archaeological sites are present in the project tract and no
new archaeological sites were identified. One of the outbuildings shown on topographic maps dating from
1935 to 2000 is still standing. Several rubble piles were identified that are the remains of modern
outbuildings; no artifacts were recovered from shovel tests near the rubble piles or standing building. As
the proposed restoration activities will not impact any significant archaeological resources, clearance to
proceed is recommended
36 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology’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.

Anderson, David G. and J.W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. Atlanta Interagency
Archaeological Services Division, National Park Service, Russell Papers.

Barry, John M.
1980 Natural Vegetation of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Bass, Quintin R.
1977 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smokey Mountains.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Bell, John L.
1987 Economic Activities. In The History of Jackson County, edited by M. R. Williams. Jackson
County Historical Society, Sylva, NC.

Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4–20.

Blethen, H. Tyler and Curtis W. Wood, Jr.
1987 The Pioneer Experience to 1851. In The History of Jackson County, edited by M. R.
Williams, pp. 67-100. Jackson County Historical Society, Sylva, NC.

Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper, eds.
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Brewer, Alberta and Carson Brewer
1975 Valley So Wild: A Folk History. East Tennessee Historical Society, Knoxville.

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.

37 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown, WV.

Cashion, Jerry C.
1979 "North Carolina and the Cherokee: The Quest for Land on the Eve of the American
Revolution, 1754-1776." PhD Dissertation, UNC-Chapel Hill.

Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 137–153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Clagett, Stephen R., John S. Cable, and Curtis E. Larsen
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, MI.

Clayton, Frederick V.
1988 Settlement in Pendleton District, 1777-1800. Southern Historical Press, Easley, SC.

Coe, Joffre L.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 54(5).

Coe, Joffre Lanning, and Olin F. McCormick
1970 Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill, NC.

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.

Corkran, David H.
1967 The Cherokee Frontier: Conflict and Survival, 1740-1762. University of Oklahoma,
Norman.

Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent
Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.

38 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 400,000 B.P. to Present. In Geobotancy II,
edited by R.C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Dickens, Roy S., Jr.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. The
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

1979 The Origins and Development of Cherokee Culture. In The Cherokee Indian Nation: A
Troubled History, edited by Duane King, pp. 3-32. The University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.

1986 An Evolutionary-Ecological Interpretation of Cherokee Cultural Behavior. In The
Conference on Cherokee Prehistory, pp. 81-94. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC.

Dillehay, T. D.
1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Vol 2: The Archaeological Context
and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Duncan, Barbara R. and Brett H. Riggs
2003 Cherokee Heritage Trails Guidebook. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Eastman, Jane M. (Compiler)
1991 Prehistoric Ceramics of North Carolina: A Quick Tour of the Published Literature. Ms on
file, Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, NC.

Egloff, Keith T.
1967 An Analysis of Ceramics From Historic Cherokee Towns. Unpublished Master's
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Eller, Ronald
1982 Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization of the Appalachian South: 1880-
1930. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Evans, E. Raymond and Duane H. King
1977 Historic Documentation of the Grant Expedition Against the Cherokees, 1761. Journal of
Cherokee Studies 1:272-301.

Ferguson, Leland G.
1971 South Appalachian Mississippian. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Finger, John R.
1984 The Eastern Band of Cherokees 1819-1900. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Frizzell, George
1987 The Cherokee Indians of Macon County. In The Heritage of Macon County North
Carolina 1987, edited by Jessie Sutton, pp. 1-4, The Macon County Historical Society,
Inc., Hunter Publishing Company, Winston-Salem, NC.

39 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Catholic University of America, 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. Goldston, E.F.,
Dwight L. Kaster, and J.A. King.

Goodwin, Gary C.
1977 Cherokees in Transition: A Study of Changing Culture and Environment Prior to 1775.
The University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper No. 181

Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.

2005 The Allendale-Brier Creek Clovis Complex: A Clovis Center in the Middle Savannah River
Valley. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Columbia, SC.

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.

Hantman, J. L., and M. J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137–164. Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication, 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Cortland.

Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Improvements on the Gastonia Sewer System, Gaston
County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.

Hudson, Charles M.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1556-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.

1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser,
eds., pp. 74–103. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.

Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando DeSoto Expedition: From Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology
3(1):65-77.

40 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapter–
ASV’s 1993 and 1995 Excavation. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus
Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, eds. DHR Research Report,
8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Keel, Bennie
1976 Cherokee Archaeology. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Kephart, Horace
1976 Our Southern Highlanders. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Kovacik, Charles F. and John J. Winberry
1987 South Carolina: A Geography. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.

Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.

Lewis, Dave
2009 Cherokee County, Electronic document. http://www.northcarolinahistory.org.

May, J. Alan
1989 Archaeological Excavation at the Crowders Creek Site (31GS55): A Late Woodland
Farmstead in the Catawba River Valle, Gaston County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies
38.

McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No 8.

McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia with Special
Attention to a Bone Tool. Jeffersonia 9:1–59.

McRae, Barbara Sears
1993 Franklin's Ancient Mound: Myth and History of Old Nikwasi, Franklin, North Carolina.
Teresita Press, Franklin, NC.

Medford, W.C.
1961 The Early History of Haywood County. W. Clark Medford, Waynesville, NC.

Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2:1-53.

41 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincauze, C.V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nuñez,
and D.J. Standford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62
(4):659-663.

Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archaeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River, Virginia-North
Carolina. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 82.

Milling, Chapman J.
1969 Red Carolinians. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Mooney, James
1982 Myths of the Cherokee. Originally published 1900, Bureau of American Ethnology, 19th
Annual Report. Charles Elder, Nashville, TN.

Moore, David G.
2006 Catawba Indians; De Soto Expedition; Estatoe Path; Pardo Expeditions. In The
Encyclopedia of North Carolina, edited by William S. Powell, University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.

1986 The Pisgah Phase: Cultural Continuity in the Appalachian Summit? In The Conference on
Cherokee Prehistory, pp. 73-80. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
1985 The Geology of North Carolina. Electronic Document,
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0a7ccd9394734ff6aa2434d
2528ddf12.

North Carolina Office of Archives and History (NCOAH)
2004 Natives and Newcomers: North Carolina before 1770. Electronic document,
http://www.waywelivednc.com/before-1770/wagon-road.htm.

Noël Hume, Ivor
1994 The Virginia Adventure: Roanoke to Jamestown, An Archaeological Odyssey. Alfred A.
Knopf, New York.

Oberg, Michael Leroy and David Moore
2017 Voyages to Carolinas: Europeans in the Indian’s Old World. In New Voyages to Carolina:
Reinterpreting North Carolina History, Larry E. Tise and Jeffrey J. Crow, eds., University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

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, eds., pp. 92–106.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

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.
42 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Billy Oliver continued
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Peterson, Ron
1981 Two Early Boundary Lines with the Cherokee Nation. Journal of Cherokee Studies 6:14-34.

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, Chapel Hill,
NC.

Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's
Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological
Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Division
of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Riggs, Brett H.
1988 An Historical and Archaeological Reconnaissance of Citizen Cherokee Reservations in
Macon, Swain, and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Department of Anthropology, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Rouse, Parke, Jr.
2001 The Great Wagon Road: From Philadelphia to the South. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.

Royce, Charles C.
1975 The Cherokee Nation of Indians. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, IL. Reprint of the
1887 edition.

Sassaman, Kenneth
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Savage, Beth L. and Sarah Dillard Pope
1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

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.

43 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Simpkins, Daniel L.
1986 A Comparison of Pisgah Plant Food Remains from the Warren Wilson Site (31BN29) With
Related Archaeological Complexes and Records of the Historic Cherokee. In The Conference
on Cherokee Prehistory, assembled by David G. Moore, pp. 20-41. Warren Wilson College,
Swannanoa, NC.

Smathers, George H.
1938 The History of Land Titles in Western North Carolina. Miller Printing Company,
Asheville, NC.

South, Stanley
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series, 165. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Southern Appalachian Center (SAC)
1979 A Socioeconomic Overview of Western North Carolina. Mars Hill College, Mars Hill, NC.

Stanford, Dennis
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, D. Gentry Steele, and Bradley T
Lepper, eds., pp. 313–353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Swanton, John R.
1979 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C. Reprint of the 1946 edition.

Teresita Press [TP]
2007 Macon County History, Electronic Document. http:www.teresita.com/html/history.html.

Town of Murphy (TOM)
2009 History of Murphy, NC and Statistics for the Town of Murphy, Electronic document.
http://www.townofmurphync.com/townhistory.php.

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 Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2020 Web Soil Survey, Electronic Document. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

Van Doren, Mark
1928 Travels of William Bartram, Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Van Noppen, Ina Woestemeyer and John J. Van Noppen
1973 Western North Carolina Since the Civil War. Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone, NC.

Ward, H. Trawick
1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin 3.

44 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Trawick H. Ward continued
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. 53-81. 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.

Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Wythe County Genealogical and Historical Association

Whittenburg, James P.
1997 Planters, Merchants, and Lawyers: Social Change and the Origins of the North Carolina
Regulation. The William and Mary Quarterly 34(2):215–238.

Williams, Samuel Cole (editor)
1930 Early Travels in the Tennessee Country. Williams Publishing, Nashville, TN.

1986 The History of the American Indians. Promontory Press, New York. Originally published
in London in 1775.

Wood, Brian
2011 Soil Survey of Graham County, North Carolina. Electronic Document,
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/grahamNC2011/Gra
ham_NC.pdf.

Woodall, J. Ned
1988 Archeological Investigations in the Yadkin River Valley, 1984-1987. Wake Forest
University Archaeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem.

Woodward, Grace Steele
1963 The Cherokees. University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Zuber, Richard L.
1969 North Carolina During Reconstruction. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator

East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
DAWN M. REID
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[phone] Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - July 2008 to present
Vice President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - 2003 to July 2008
President, Heritage Partners, LLC. - 2007 to present
Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator, Brockington and Associates, Inc. - 1993 to 2003

EDUCATION
B.S. in Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1992
M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Client and Agency Consultations for Planning and Development
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) Society for American Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Mid-Atlantic Archaeology Conference
Archaeological Society of South Carolina Council of South Carolina Professional
Archaeologists
North Carolina Archaeological Society North Carolina Council of Professional
Archaeologists

Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II) - Representative Examples

• Airport Expansions for Concord Regional Airport (Cabarrus County), Hickory Regional Airport (Burke
County)

• Greenways for Appomattox County, Virginia (Appomattox Heritage Trail), Isle of Wight County (Fort
Huger)

• Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), BREMCO (Asheville), SCE&G
(Columbia), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Transco Pipeline (Houston), ANR Pipeline (Detroit), and
others

• Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina
Department of Transportation (Columbia), North Carolina Department of Transportation (Raleigh)

• Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies
including the USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Mobile and Wilmington Districts)

Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) - Representative Examples

• Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA

• Prehistoric village (31ON1578) and late 18th/early 19th century plantation (31ON1582) for R.A.
Management, Charlotte, NC

East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
• 18th century residence (38BU1650) for Meggett, LLC, Bluffton, SC

• Prehistoric camps/villages (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) for Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club,
Myrtle Beach, SC

EXPERIENCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES

Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia; Townsend Bombing Range, McIntosh County, Georgia; Fort Bragg, Fayette ville,
North Carolina; Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina; Fort Jackson, Columbia, South Carolina; Fort
Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Georgia Power Company -Flint River Hydroelectric Project
Duke Energy - Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina; Fishing Creek, South Carolina

*A detailed listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request