20220041 Ver 1_10 - ACC Archaeological Survey 2021-December_20220104

Archaeological Survey of the
Boylston Development Tract
Henderson County, North Carolina
DRAFT REPORT
ER21-2387
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
December 2021

Archaeological Survey of the
Boylston Development Tract
Henderson County, North Carolina
ER 21-2387
Prepared for
ECS Southeast, LLP
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared by
Abigail McCoy
Archaeologist
and
Michael Keith O'Neal
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
December 2021

Management Summary
Between 8 and 9 December 2021, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted
an archaeological survey of the Boylston Development tract in Henderson County, North Carolina. A letter
from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 9 November 2021 recommended a
comprehensive archaeological survey of the project area due to tract's proximity to the Mills River and its
topography. ACC contracted with ECS Southeast, LLP., to conduct this investigation. The goals of this
investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project tract, assess those
resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management
recommendations, as appropriate.
The project tract is in the northwest portion of Henderson County near the town of Mills River. The
project tract measures 12.5 acres (5.1 ha). The tract is bounded on the southeast by Boylston Highway (State
Highway 280). The remainder of the boundaries are formed by property lines. The tract is largely
characterized by a grassy field. An old landing strip traverses the tract from northeast to southwest. The
northwestern corner of the tract is characterized by hardwoods, a wetland area, and a concrete pad
associated with the former landing strip.
Background research included a review of archaeological site forms, cultural resource reports, and
historic maps of the project area. No previously recorded cultural resources are present in the project tract.
Thirty cultural resources, including 15 archaeological sites and 15 historic resources, have been recorded
within a 1.6-kilometer radius of the project tract. None will be directly impacted by the proposed
development.
Prior to beginning field work, factors such as soil drainage, topography, and proximity to water were
used to define portions of the project tract that had high potential for the presence of archaeological deposits.
As the soils in the tract are classified as well drained and have slopes less than 15 percent, the entire 12.5-
acre (5.1-ha) tract was considered to have high archaeological potential. The survey consisted of excavating
shovel tests at 20-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 20 meters apart. One unknown prehistoric
lithic scatter, 31HN318, was identified during the survey. The site yielded few artifacts and has no further
research potential. Site 31HN318 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. As no significant
archaeological deposits were identified in the project tract, no further work is advocated for this project.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
11

Table of Contents
Page
ManagementSummary................................................................................................................................. ii
Listof Figures.............................................................................................................................................. iv
Listof Tables............................................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter1. Introduction........................................................................................................................... I
TheProject Area.............................................................................................................................. I
InvestigationMethods...................................................................................................................... I
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview................................................................................. 8
EnvironmentalOverview................................................................................................................. 8
CulturalOverview.......................................................................................................................... I I
Chapter 3. Background Research Results.............................................................................................26
Chapter 4. Archaeological Survey Results........................................................................................... 32
Summaryand Recommendations..................................................................................................36
ReferencesCited.........................................................................................................................................37
Appendix A. Artifact Catalog
Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
III

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1.
Map showing the location of the project area.......................................................................1
Figure 1.2.
Topographic map showing the project tract..........................................................................
2
Figure 1.3.
General views of the survey areas.........................................................................................
3
Figure 1.4.
Aerial view of the project tract.............................................................................................4
Figure 1.5.
LiDAR map showing the high potential areas in the project tract ........................................
5
Figure 2.1.
Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area ..................
8
Figure 2.2.
Map of the Little Tennessee River basin showing the location of the project area ..............
9
Figure 2.3.
Map showing the soil types present in the project tracts.....................................................10
Figure 2.4.
Aerial views of the project area between 1994 and 2019...................................................12
Figure 3.1.
Map showing the previously recorded cultural resources within 1.6 kilometers of the
projectarea..........................................................................................................................27
Figure 3.2.
1907 soil map of the project area........................................................................................
28
Figure 3.3.
1938 highway map of the project area................................................................................29
Figure 3.4.
1936 topographic map showing the project area.................................................................29
Figure 3.5.
1965 topographic map showing the project area.................................................................
30
Figure 3.6.
1978 topographic map showing the project tract................................................................
30
Figure 3.7.
1991 topographic map showing the project tract................................................................
31
Figure 4.1.
Map showing the survey areas, high potential, and the identified archaeological site.......
32
Figure 4.2.
Map showing shovel tests excavated within the project area ..............................................
33
Figure 4.3.
Views of soil profiles in the survey area.............................................................................
34
Figure 4.4.
Plan map of Site 31MA879.................................................................................................
35
List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1. Summary of Soil Types Present in the Project Tract..........................................................10
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Appalachian Summit in North
Carolina...............................................................................................................................13
Table 3.1. Recorded Archaeological Sites within 1.6 Kilometers of the Project Area ........................ 26
Table 3.2. Summary of Historic Resources Documented Within 1.6 Kilometers of the Project
Tract.................................................................................................................................... 27
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
lv

Chapter 1. Introduction
Between 8 and 9 December 2021, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted
an archaeological survey of the Boylston Development tract in Henderson County, North Carolina. A letter
from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 9 November 2021 recommended a
comprehensive archaeological survey of the project area due to tract's proximity to the Mills River and its
topography. ACC contracted with ECS Southeast, LLP., to conduct this investigation. The goals of this
investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project tract, assess those
resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management
recommendations, as appropriate. Mr. Michael O'Neal served as Principal Investigator and Field Director.
He was assisted in the field by Ms. Abigail McCoy and Mr. Michael McCoy. The project required
approximately 6 person days to complete.
The Project Area
The project tract is in the
northwest portion of Henderson
County near the community of
Mills River (Figure 1.1). The
project tract measures 12.5 acres
(5.1 ha; Figure 1.2). The tract is
bounded on the southeast by
Boylston Highway (State
Highway 280). The remainder of
the boundaries are formed by
property lines. The tract is
largely characterized by a grassy
field. An old landing strip
traverses the tract from northeast
to southwest. The northwestern
corner of the tract is
characterized by hardwoods, a
wetland area, and a concrete pad
associated with the former
landing strip. Figure 1.3 presents
views of the various
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the project area.
environmental settings in the
project tract. An aerial view of the project tract is presented in Figure 1.4.
Investigation Methods
This archaeological investigation consisted of four separate tasks: Background Research, Field
Investigation, Laboratory Analysis, and Project Documentation. Each of these tasks is described in detail
below.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina

x 1328
r
5
Y �fJ ds
f" * ■ `�
'IV Ws iver
'N. r Boylston Development Tract
—� ■ O Project Tract
0 75 150 225 300
4
w f*� + rr ■
Meters
11 ✓✓
Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the project tract (1965 Skyland, NC USGS 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangle [pr1991]).
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, as well as the Office of Survey and
Planning's website (HPOWEB). This review served to identify previously recorded resources in the project
vicinity and provided data on the prehistoric and historic context of the project tract. The Henderson 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 including the 1907 Henderson County soil map, 1938
Henderson County highway map, and topographic maps dating back to 1936 were examined to determine
historic land use in the project vicinity.
Field Survey focused most intensively on portions of the project tracts determined to have high
potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. Close -interval contour topographic maps, Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) images, and soil data of the survey area were consulted prior to initiation
of fieldwork. Based on soil drainage, topographic relief, proximity to water, and other factors, the entire
12.5-acre (5.1-ha) tract was considered to have high potential for the presence of archaeological deposits
(Figure 1.5). Shovel tests were excavated at 20-meter intervals along parallel transects spaced 20 meters
apart throughout the project tract. This survey strategy was developed in consultation with Mr. Dylan Clark,
Assistant State Archaeologist with OSA.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
2

IlTop (L-R): Grassy field; Landing Strip, Middle (L-R): Woods; Wetland, Bottom (L and R): Concrete pad building remains
Figure 1.3. General views of the survey areas.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
3

Yt
A
�O
4f
�h
,gym
Hilda Ln Clement Dr
6eN8v0f c
A�
w w
w a
n �
w
ti
Boylston Development Tract
-� � Sch°°I }louse Ad
O Project Tract
n
Road s
cnAAe �� 0 100 200 300 400
cORd�A26 `j�®O' �
Meters
Figure 1.4. Aerial view of the project tract.
An archaeological site is defined as an area containing one or more artifacts within a 30-meter or less
diameter of surface exposure 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. Site settings were photographed with a digital camera. Sketch maps were produced in the field
showing the locations of shovel tests and surface finds. The location of each site was recorded using a
Trimble Pathfinder Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and relayed onto project maps.
Excavated shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated to 10
centimeters into subsoil, the water table, or bedrock. Shovel test fill was screened through 0.25-inch wire
mesh. Details of artifacts and soils for each shovel test were recorded in field notebooks. Artifacts were
collected and placed in plastic bags labeled with the date, field site number, grid point locations (i.e., shovel
test/transect or northeast coordinate), depth of artifacts, and initials of the excavator. To delineate
archaeological resources, short interval (10-meter) shovel testing was used.
The primary goals of this field investigation were to identify archaeological resources and evaluate
their potential research value or significance. Although the determination of the site significance is made
by the SHPO, whenever possible, sufficient data is gathered to allow us to make a significance
recommendation. Sites that exhibit little or no further research potential are recommended not eligible for
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
4

v
O
S
N
'C
Aryl' i.
N
`j yy� t or
O
y`a�e
ENV
h�
a`
U'
1�
e
Boylston Development Tract
OProject Tract Read
High Potential 2-fl Contour
0 40 80 12D 160
OMeters
Figure 1.5. LiDAR map showing the high potential areas in the project tract.
the NRHP, and no further investigation is proposed. Sites for which insufficient data could be obtained at
the survey level are considered unassessed and preservation or more in-depth investigation is advocated. It
is rare for ample data to be recovered at the survey level of investigation to definitively determine that a
site meets NRHP eligibility criteria. However, when this occurs, the site is recommended eligible for the
NRHP. Again, preservation of the resource is advocated. If preservation is not possible, mitigation options
(e.g., data recovery) would need to be considered.
Laboratory Analysis. All recovered cultural material is processed in the Clayton laboratory facilities
of ACC. Artifacts are washed and allowed to thoroughly air dry. A provenience number, based on artifact
contexts (i.e., grid coordinate, depth, etc.), is assigned to each positive excavation location. Within each
provenience, individual artifacts or artifact classes are then assigned a catalog number. Artifacts are
cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the case of lithics, and
decoration and temper type in the case of prehistoric ceramics.
Diagnostic prehistoric artifacts are compared to published type descriptions (e.g., Charles and Moore
2018; Coe 1964; Herbert 2009; Oliver 1999; Peck 1982; Sassaman 1993; Ward and Davis 1999; and
Whatley 2002;) and cataloged by type when possible. Lithics artifacts are examined in detail and classified
by artifact type and raw material.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina

Historic artifacts are identified by color, material of manufacture (e.g., ceramics), type (e.g., slipware),
form (e.g., bowl, plate), method of manufacture (e.g., molded), period of manufacture (e.g., 1780-1820),
and intended function (e.g., tableware). Historic artifacts with established manufacture date ranges are
categorized using Aultman et al. (2021), Brown (1982), Feldhues (1995), Florida Museum of Natural
History (FLMNH; 2009), Majewski and O'Brien (1987), Noel Hume (1969), and South (1977, 2004).
Artifact descriptions, counts, and weights are recorded, and all diagnostic and cross -mended artifacts are
labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid -free permanent ink.
All artifacts are placed in acid -free resealable plastic bags with acid -free labels listing the provenience
and field identification information. Upon acceptance of the final project report, all analysis sheets, field
notes, photographs, maps, and artifacts are prepared according to federal guidelines and submitted to OSA
for final curation, provided that a deed of gift is signed by the property owners. Documentation, including
photographs of recovered artifacts, are included in the curation package, which will be submitted to OSA
for final curation.
Project Documentation. Project documentation involved the compilation of all data gathered during
the previous tasks. This report includes a discussion of the investigation methods, background findings,
field survey results, and management recommendations. Each individual site is discussed and shown on a
variety of project maps. The data obtained from the background research and field investigations are
included in the site discussions. Finally, the report includes an assessment of the NRHP eligibility of each
archaeological site recorded during this investigation.
Evaluating NRHP Eligibility
Site significance is based on the site's ability to contribute to our understanding of past lifeways, and
its subsequent eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Department of Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 60)
established criteria that must be met for an archaeological site or historic resource to be considered
significant, or eligible for the NRHP (Townsend et al. 1993). Under these criteria, a site can be defined as
significant if it retains integrity of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association" and if it:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of
history,
B. Is associated with lives of persons significant in the past,
C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Archaeological sites are usually evaluated relative to Criterion D. As locations of human activities, which
include physical remains of those activities, archaeological sites are potential sources of important
information. However, some archaeological sites, particularly those representing historic period occupation
or use, can be considered eligible under Criterion A if they are associated with an important event or pattern
of events; under Criterion B if they are associated with important people; or Criterion C if important
structural elements are preserved (Savage and Pope 1998; Townsend et al. 1993).
The National Park Service defines two requirements for archaeological sites to be eligible under
Criterion D:
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina

The site must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human
history or prehistory, and
The information must be considered important.
The National Park Service provides clarification for the first requirement by stating that an archaeological
site is eligible for the NRHP if that site "has been used as a source of data and contains more, as yet
unretneved data" (Savage and Pope 1998:21). Regarding the second requirement, Glassow (1977)
recommends careful consideration of specific site attributes (integrity, clarity, artifact frequency, and
artifact diversity) in determining whether an archaeological site contains important information. Butler
(1987:8821) defines "important information" as the potential of an archaeological site to contribute to
current "theoretical and substantive knowledge" of archaeology in the site's regional setting. In other words,
under Criterion D, importance or significance can be defined as research potential. The research potential
of an archaeological site can be determined by demonstrating that the site retains relatively intact
archaeological contexts such as: culturally or temporally diagnostic artifacts, intact cultural features,
discrete artifact clusters denoting activity areas, or preserved organic materials associated with the site
occupation. To be considered eligible, these data should be capable of addressing important research
questions by testing hypotheses, supporting current scientific interpretations, or reconstructing cultural
chronologies through appropriate analytical methods.
As indicated by Glassow (1977) aspects of integrity are also important in determining the NRHP
eligibility of archaeological sites. However, because archaeological sites have been altered by
environmental conditions and human land -use activities and information potential relies less on overall
condition of the site, location and association are the most important aspects of integrity for archaeological
sites. To be eligible for the NRHP, an archaeological site must possess artifacts in or near their original
depositional location that can be employed to determine the past use of the locale and the approximate date
of its past use. Integrity of location indicates occurrence of artifacts, artifact clusters, middens, or features
in sufficient numbers to permit quantitative assessments of their horizontal and vertical distributions across
the site. These cultural deposits must occur within relatively intact soil deposits that represent specific
human activities, suite of activities, or natural events that occurred on the site. The relationships between
cultural and natural remains are critical to understanding how the site was created (i.e., the kinds of human
activities that occurred at the site to produce the artifacts and features) and how the site has changed since
its initial occupation. The presence of artifacts and features that can be employed to make these
interpretations is essential to recommending a site eligible for the NRHP. Townsend et al. (1993) states
"under Criterion (D), integrity of association is measured in terms of strength of the relationship between
the site's data or information and the important research questions."
It is important to note that the ability of an archaeological site to generate information beyond that
already known must be evaluated. If artifacts and features encountered in a newly discovered site occur at
numerous previously recorded sites in a region, then the new site is not expected to generate new
information. The site could be recommended not eligible for the NRHP even though it may contain adequate
numbers of temporally and/or functionally sensitive artifacts within intact natural or cultural deposits.
Alternatively, a site that produces extremely rare artifacts or evidence of extremely rare activities may be
considered eligible for the NRHP even if it lacks these associations.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina

Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
Environmental Overview
The Boylston Development tract is in the Blue Ridge physiographic province (Figure 2.1). Henderson
County contains mountain peaks more than 1,220 meters in elevation, large rolling valleys, and stream and
river floodplains. A broad intermountain valley encompasses approximately 194 to 207 square kilometers
near the town of Hendersonville, including the current project tract. Floodplains are broad and can extend to
as much as 1.6 kilometers wide (King 1980). Elevations within the county range between 426 and 1,610
meters above mean sea level (amsl). In the project tract, elevations range from 652 to 671 meters amsl.
Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina
Kilometers
Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area.
Drainage
The eastern portion of Henderson County drains south and east toward the Atlantic Ocean. However,
most of the county, including the project tract, is in the French Broad/Holston River basin. The project tract
is drained by Brandy Branch located to the south. This creek flows east to the Mills River, a tributary of the
French Broad River. The French Broad flows northwest into Tennessee, converging with the Holston River
near Knoxville. The Holston River is a tributary of the Tennessee River ultimately making its way into the
Mississippi River and ending in the Gulf of Mexico.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina

WATAUGA
_
AV_ERY
MITCHELL
YA NC EY
MADISON
�T
:+k
mo,yr�rM
v.
Mero - B,e�aru.r
BUNCOMBE
HfAYW OOD
,Dune w,n�.�rn�
Rwal Plnc
Project Area
enwmun
n<nv.il.
o..nm
a
somem�
e r
HENDERSONS-
I
Boylston Development Tract
TRA NSYLVANIA
ProjectArea = RiverlLake
French Broad -Holston
-
0 10 20 30 40
a .
Kilometers I
Figure 2.2. Map of the Little Tennessee River basin showing the location of the project area.
Climate
The climate within Henderson County is variable and is largely dependent on elevation. Higher
elevations and the southwestern portion of the county typically experience higher rainfall and snowfall.
Average summer temperature is 74 OF with highs near 85 OF. Winter temperatures average 40 OF with
minimum temperatures near 26 OF (King 1980).
Soils
There are four soil types present in the project tract (Table 2.2; Figure 2.3), with Fannin silt loam
encompassing the largest proportion of the tract (45.2%). Fannin soils are well -drained and found on the
highest elevations within the project tract. Bradson soils are moderately well drained, encompass 38.3
percent of the tract, and are present in the central portion of the tract. Delanco soils are also moderately
well drained and found at the lowest elevations in the tract along the Boylston Highway. The well -drained
Hayesville soils are limited to the northwest corner of the tract (USDA 2021).
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
9

Table 2.1. Summary of Soil Types Present in the Project Tract (USDA 2021).
Soil Type
I Description
%Area
Bradson gravelly loam (BaB)
Well -drained, 2-7% sloe
38.3
Delanco loam (DeB)
Moderately well drained, 2-7% sloe
15.0
Fannin silt loam (FaC)
Well -drained, 7-15% sloe
45.2
Ha esville loam (H C)
Well -drained, 7-15% sloe
1.4
U
or
U
ryrym' i.
a
a
a
o WrighlDr
`�C FaC
a o
BaB .' a�A
DeB
a'
e•
vo,
t,.
1�
or
5
Soil Type Boylston Development Tract
Bradson gravelly loam (BaB) O Project Tract 2-ft Contour
FiDelanco loam (DeB) Road
Fannin silt loam (FaC) 0 40 80 120 160
Hayesville loam (HyC) n µ
C/ Meters
Figure 2.3. Map showing the soil types present in the project tract.
Paleoenvironment
Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000 years
(the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) and include a general warming trend, melting of
the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin glaciation, and an associated rise in sea level. This sea level rise was
dramatic along the coast (Brooks et al. 1989), with an increase of as much as 100 meters. 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
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
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
10

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 ofthe 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). Ina study by Sheehan et al. (1985), palynological evidence
suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly decreased in importance between 9,000 and 4,000 years
before present (BP). By the mid -Holocene, the oak -hickory forest was gradually being replaced by a pine
dominated woodland (Wharton 1989:12).
From 4,000 years BP to the present, the upland vegetation of the Southeast was characterized by
a thinning of the deciduous forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1987). Hickory and gums were generally less
important, with alder and ragweed increasing in representation in the palynological record (Delcourt
1979; Sheehan et al. 1985). This forest thinning suggests an increase in human related landscape
modifications (i.e., timbering, farming). Similarly, the importance and overall increase in pine species in the
forest during this time would have depended on several factors, including fire, land clearing, and soil erosion
(Plummer 1975; Sheldon 1983). Since that time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward
slightly cooler and moister conditions, leading to the development of the present Southern Mixed
Hardwood Forest as defined by Quarterman and Keever (1962).
Faunal communities have also changed dramatically over time. A number of large mammal
species (e.g., mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct towards the end of the
glacial period 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Human groups, which for subsistence had focused on hunting
these large mammals, readapted their strategy to exploit smaller mammals, primarily deer in the
Southeast.
Current Environment
The Boylston Development tract is largely characterized by grassy field with some hardwood present
in the northwestern corner of the tract (see Figure 1.3). An airplane landing strip runs northeast -southwest
through the southern portion of the project tract. Aerial images obtained from Google Earth show that little
has changed in the project area since the 1990s (Figure 2.4). In 1994, a long building, which presumably
served as a hangar associated with the landing strip, is shown along the western tract boundary. The last
image in which the structure is shown intact is the 2002 aerial. The 2005 aerial has relatively poor
resolution, but the building appears to have been destroyed by that time. In aerials dating between 2006 and
2019, only the concrete pad foundation remains, and vegetation regrowth has continued. Construction on
the commercial property northeast of the project tract began in 2015, and the existing parking lot and
commercial building is visible in the 2019 aerial image.
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into three general eras: Pre -Contact,
Contact/Protohistoric, 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 usually were 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.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
11

Figure 2.4. Aerial views of the project area between 1994 and 2019.
The following discussion first summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in the project
area, 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.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
12

Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Appalachian Summit in North Carolina.
Temporal
Phase
Diagnostic Artifacts
Settlement
Subsistence
Period
Paleoindian
Clovis
large, triangular, fluted or side-
small, seasonal camps
intensive foraging, focus
(10,000-8,000 BC)
notched projectile points
on large fauna
Hardaway
Archaic
Palmer
smaller side -notched
larger, seasonal camps;
intensive foraging
(8,000-1,000 BC)
St. Albans
projectile points with U-
base camps
LeCroy
shaped notches
Kirk
larger corner -notched
projectile points
Stanly
stemmed points
Morrow Mtn.
Guilford
Halifax
stemmed with shallow side notches
Savannah River
large Savannah River points with square
mostly seasonal camps
intensive foraging
stems
with some evidence for
and focus on
soapstone bowls
larger, more permanent
riverine resources
occupations
Woodland
Swannanoa
crushed quartz- or coarse sand -tempered,
small, dispersed villages;
intensive foraging;
(1,000 BC- 1100 AD)
thick vessel walls; cord marked, fabric-
ridge tops within upland
introduction of bow
impressed, some check and simple
valleys and floodplains
and arrow
stamped
small, stemmed points (Swannanoa
Stemmed, Plott Stemmed, Gypsy)
Pigeon
crushed quartz -tempered ceramics; check
Floodplains; upland
increased reliance on
stamped and some plain, simple stamped,
valleys, coves, and
horticulture
brushed, and complicated stamped; large
ridgetops, likely small
supplemented by
tetrapodal supports on vessel base;
hunting camps
foraging; usually
iridescent sheen on interior
cultivating small -grain
seed plants
small triangular and side -notched points
Connestee
thin -walled vessels, mostly fine sand
some low platform
temper and some crushed quartz; some
mounds, rock -filled
small tetrapodal supports; plain, brushed,
hearth pits; generally
or simple stamped, some cord marked,
larger and more intensive
and fabric impressed. Hopewell artifacts
occupations, floodplains
of major streams; some
smaller, temporary camps
Late Connestee
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
Mississippian
Pisgah
sand -tempered; collared rims decorated
small farmsteads to large,
intensive agriculture
(1100 - 1650 AD)
with punctates, incising, and
nucleated villages
supplemented by foraging
castellations; rectilinear complicated
sometimes with
and horticulture
stamped vessel
substructure low platform
mounds; some palisades;
Middle and Late
flaring rims with notched strip added
floodplains near major
Qualla
beneath; rectilinear and curvilinear
streams
stamped with some burnishing, check
stamping, and cordmarking
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
13

Pre -Contact Period
Coe (1964) conducted excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont and used that data
to construct a cultural chronology for the region based projectile point typology. Although Coe's sequence
has largely stood the test of time, archaeological investigations in the following decades has provided data
(e.g., chronometric) that allowed for revisions to Coe's chronology (Daniel 2021).
Paleoindian Period (12000 - 8000 BC). The Paleoindian Period refers to the earliest human
occupations of the New World, the origins and age of which remain a subject of debate. The most accepted
theory dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter -gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This time
period corresponds to the exposure of a land bridge connecting Siberia to the North American continent during
the last ice age (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Research conducted over the past few decades has begun
to cast doubt on this theory.
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 to 19,000 (or more) years ago
(Goodyear 2006). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar dates. One
contentious point about these early sites is that the occupations predate what has been recognized as the earliest
New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts identified at pre -Clovis sites include flake tools and blades, prismatic
blades, bifaces, and lanceolate -like points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2006; 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 ofpredecessors to the Clovis pointtype have led some researchers to hypothesize other avenues ofNew
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 et al. 2006). Coastal migration theories envision sea faring people using boats to make the journey,
evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).
In North Carolina, Daniel (2021) divides the Paleoindian Period into Early, Middle, and Late
subperiods. Each subperiod is recognized by distinct projectile point types. The Early Paleoindian Period
(13,500-12,800 BP) is defined by the Clovis projectile point. Clovis points have lanceolate or slightly
excurvate blades that exhibit one or more flutes on at least one face of the blade. The Middle Paleoindian
Period (12,800-12,550 BP) is defined by Redstone and Cumberland points. Redstone points have elongated
trianguloid blades with a single relatively long and wide flute. Cumberland points are relatively narrow and
exhibit a single or multiple flutes along the face. The bases have ears with low basal concavity. The hallmark
of the Late Paleoindian Period is the Hardaway -Dalton point (12,550-11,400 BP). First defined by Coe
(1964), it is a thin lanceolate point with deep basal concavity and an eared base. The sides of the point can
be straight or incurvate. Some specimens exhibit evidence of fluting that may be associated with the
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
14

manufacturing process that may not be visible on the final form; the final form is not defined by the presence
of fluting (Daniel 2021). He notes that this sequence of points is generally accepted in the southeast but has
not been corroborated with stratigraphic or chronometric data.
Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States (Ward and
Davis 1999); this indicates to many scholars that population density was extremely low during this period and
that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were
probably well -scheduled, and that some semblance of territories was probably maintained to ensure adequate
arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
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
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 (8, 000 - 1, 000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable researchin
the Southeast. 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 (1964) divided the Archaic Period into Early, Middle, and Late Archaic
subperiods.
The Early Archaic subperiod (based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and Kirk Corner
Notched projectile points (Coe 1964). 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., Le Croy points),
but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as being
representative ofthe Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1981; 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 and Cable (1982), using a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980),
described late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical." Task groups were sent out to collect
and bring back resources to the residential base camp. Logistical task groups, in this definition, are seen as
specialized and focused on a particular resource or set of resources.
Claggett and Cable (1982) have presented a model that describes an increase in residential mobility
beginning in the Early Archaic and extending into the Middle Archaic. According to this model, the Early
Archaic, and probably extending into the Middle Archaic, human groups moved away from a logistical
organization toward a "foraging" organization. Foraging involved more generalized procurement of resources
(e.g., animal and plant foods, lithic resources) in closer proximity to a base camp. Sassaman (1983)
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 (Sassaman 1983); this increase in population led to increased 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).
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
15

The transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod is defined by the appearance/introduction of Stanly
points, a broad -bladed stemmed form. 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. Coe dates Halifax Side Notched points to between 4,000 and 3,000 BC.
In1964, Coe saw Halifax points as occurring only in the northern North Carolina Piedmont and indicating
a relationship of this area to the Mid -Atlantic and Northeast. Halifax points are now seen to have a wider
distribution in the Southeast and are thought to mark the transition between the Middle and Late Archaic
subperiods.
The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe 1964). This
large, broad -bladed and stemmed point is found widely over the eastern United States. It is associated with
Late Archaic occupations in the mountains and uplands, as well as coastal midden sites of the period. Also,
the earliest ceramics produced in North America are associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and date to
around 2,000 BC. These ceramics are Stallings Fiber Tempered and are primarily coastal phenomena,
stretching from northern Florida to southern North Carolina. Excavations at the Iddins site in southwestern
Tennessee contained steatite bowls (Ward and Davis 1999:71).
Sites of later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier sites (Caldwell
1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are generally in riverine settings within
the Blue Ridge and are hypothesized to indicate greatly increased sedentism during the Late Archaic, with a focus
on fish, turtle, and other riverine resources. Acorns, hickory nuts were collected, and squash and gourds
were cultivated (Ward and Davis 1999).
Woodland Period (1, 000 BC - 1100 AD). 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 Woodland period
is characterized by the Swannanoa phase. 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 region at this time. These points are
stratigraphically associated with a larger triangular point type called "Transylvania Triangular" that appears
to correspond 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 and
southwestern Piedmont ofNorthCarolina: The Pigeon phase (300 BC - 200 AD) and the Connestee phase (200
AD - 800 AD). Pigeon phase pottery is identified by fairly large amounts of crushed quartz temper, surface
treatments of checkstamping (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-centerbar gorgets, grooved axes, celts, flake scrapers, ceramic pipes, and
a variety ofhammerstonesare 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 occasional crushed quartz fragments. 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 andDavis 1999). Other artifacts from the Connestee phase include clay figurines,
stone blades, and copper sheets and beads.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
16

Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period, so subsistence strategies remained focused on
hunting animals and gathering wild plants, though the Connestee were cultivating indigenous plants,
generally small -grain seed plants, which were increasing in dietary importance. Unfortunately, data
involving the Late Woodland period in this area is still minimal (Ward and Davis 1999). The Cane Creek
Site underwent salvage excavations in the mid-1960s and is believed to date to the end of the Connestee
phase, roughly A.D. 1000 (Keel and Egloff 1984:24). A large number of bone and shell artifacts were
identified, including awls, pins, and fishhooks. Most of the ceramics were sand tempered and their surfaces
were plain, smoothed, or burnished.
Mississippian Period (1100 - 1650 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 floodplains 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).
Contact/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
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
17

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 ofthe 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 ofNorth Carolina
during the mid -sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Native American villages near
the present- day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Beck et al. 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. 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 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 (Dr. David Moore,
personal communication 2003).
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 collapse 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 (Noel 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 (Noel 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.
Post -Contact Cultural Overview
Historians, anthropologists, and folklorists have produced a significant body of literature about western
North Carolina. Several histories focus on the Cherokee Nation and works from western North and South
Carolina contain data on treaties, land cessions, and the frontier white settlement in the Blue Ridge
Mountains (Ashe 1925; Blackmun 1977; Finger 1984; Goodwin 1977; King 1980; Milling 1969; Mooney
1982; Riggs 1988; Royce 1975; Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973). This brief overview of the historical
development of Henderson County and western North Carolina provides a context for sites found during
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
18

the survey. The formation of the county and the development of local communities is traced, and there is a
discussion of economic development throughout the historic period.
Spanish Exploration and the Historic Cherokee Period (1540-1776). The Cherokee are the closest
Native American group to the project area. From earliest European contact, the Cherokee were divided into
three related subgroups: Upper (or Overbill), 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 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 apparently occupied this land intermittently until the early to middle eighteenth century.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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).
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
19

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 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).
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.
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
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
20

planted last season: the soil exceedingly fertile, loose, black, deep, and fat" (Van Doren 1928:286).
According to Adair (1775), the Cherokees cultivated hemp and wine grapes, and that good hops grew wild
near Nequasee. Adair (1775) also mentioned that the Cherokees had, at one time, raised hogs and poultry,
as well as many horses.
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).
American Revolution and the Antebellum Period (1776-1860). 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). An American force led by General Griffith Rutherford marched south
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.
Once the Revolutionary War ended, and with it the threat of Indian raids, more settlers began arriving
in Henderson County. 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. When the nation was young, there seemed to be no limits to the availability of good
land if people were only adventurous enough to brave the perils on the seemingly endless frontier.
There were also those who left the region because there were already too many people to suit their
tastes. Some settlers just did not want to be close to anybody who might infringe on their privacy and
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
21

freedom. Also, neighbors sometimes built fences, which were unacceptable to those who wanted their
livestock to roam free. But an even more 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. Also lost were the many
tree roots that had reached broadly across the landscape, holding soil in place. Farming loosened soils in
the river -bottoms where nature expedited 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. 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 remove 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. Small
groups of the Cherokee, including the Quallatown Indians of western North Carolina, resisted removal and
were later designated the Eastern Band of Cherokee (Finger 1984). In 1838, federal troops removed 17,000
Cherokee from their homes in Alabama, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee to the
Oklahoma Indian Territory (Finger 1984). However, 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).
In 1838, Henderson County was formed from a portion of Buncombe County; agriculture primarily
made up the early economy of the county, with crops such as corn, wheat, potatoes, and apples. It was
named for Leonard Henderson, who was a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The first
court to be held was at a private home with the purpose of determining a location for a permanent
courthouse. Almost immediately conflict developed between two factions who favored different locations
for the county seat. This conflict became so heated that the state legislature ordered that the matter be settled
by a public vote. A location near the base of Pisgah Mountain, the present-day location of Hendersonville,
was chosen. Changes to the county boundaries were subsequently made in 1844, 1851, 1855, 1861, and
1903, when the county boundaries became what they are today (Corbitt 1987).
James Dyer Justice conducted the original survey of Hendersonville, selecting 40 lots that were
separated into quarter block portions. A center square on Main Street was portioned off for the new
courthouse that was opened in 1844. Space was left for rows of trees to be planted along Main Street, and
the street was left 100 feet wide to enable four horses and a carriage to turn around easily (HHPC 1996).
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
22

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.
The region lacked a consistently dependable transportation network until the mid -twentieth century
(Farlow et al. 1993:11-12). Early descriptions of the area include frequent accounts of the inferior condition
of the county's roads. The earliest transportation routes of the historic period were overland east -west
through Balsam and Soco gaps, and water travel north -south on the Pigeon River. The Old Cataloochee
Road, which passed to the west of the project area, paralleled the Pigeon River, running from Waynesville
to the Tennessee border. By the 1830s, an east -west stagecoach route had been established through western
North Carolina, with major stops in Asheville, Waynesville, and Franklin (Farlow et al. 1993:11-12).
The need for better access to markets for the region's predominantly agricultural products stimulated
a road improvements campaign. By 1846-1848, the Western North Carolina Turnpike, or the "Old State
Road," had been completed as far west as Asheville. With the exception of towns on the Western North
Carolina Turnpike, the rest of the region remained relatively insulated from the outside world for over a
century.
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.
Civil War and Reconstruction (1860-1880. The financial difficulties of local planters were quickly
overshadowed by distant battles in Virginia. Although the skirmishes of the Civil War never took place
near the project area, it is probable that no family went untouched by the conflict. Archival records indicate
that many of the young men that lived in the area marched off to fight on the side of the Confederacy.
Certainly, most people knew a man, or even a boy, injured or killed in the war, and few could ignore the
many rumors about battles won and lost on both sides. A total of 1,296 men from Henderson County joined
the Confederate Army, with another 130 men joining the Union army; the county's population at the time
was only approximately 10,000 (Garren 2006).
The 64th Infantry Regiment, organized during the summer of 1862, was anticipated to be a legion
containing 13 companies of infantry and three of cavalry. However, the command was reduced to 10
companies and designated the 64th Regiment. Its members were from the counties of Madison, Henderson,
and Polk. The records show that 288 men of the 64th were prisoners at Camp Douglas. The unit served
under Generals Breckinridge, Vaughn, and Williams in East Tennessee, then became part of Colonel J.B.
Palmer's Brigade at Asheville in March 1865. The unit later disbanded near the French Broad River.
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 [SAC] 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
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
23

Appalachians were a major hog producing area before the coming of the timber industry and the purchase
of woodlands by private corporations (SAC 1979).
Late Nineteenth/Early Twentieth Century (1880-1920). 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 (SAC 1979). 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 Railroad, the state bought out the company's interests, and, using convict labor, completed the rail
line through Asheville in 1880 (Zuber 1969). The first train arrived at the Asheville station on October 3,
1880 (Bishir et al. 1999:261).
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."
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 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.
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 Highlands. 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
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
24

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.
Hendersonville continued to grow during this time, with the inclusion of water and sewer lines, an
updated town hall, the establishment of a town cemetery and two graded schools, and the paving of
sidewalks and streets (HHPC 1996). Tourism also increased and numerous hotels and boarding houses were
established, including the Wheeler Hotel, which had 100 rooms and a dance pavilion.
As electricity was introduced to the area, the original gasoline -powered streetcar system was converted
to electrical power, which continued to operate into the 1910s. The rail line that was established in
Hendersonville in 1879 was connected to the Asheville line in 1886, and by the early twentieth century
Hendersonville was home to lumber companies, sawmills, casket factories, a wagon shop, and a grist mill,
all of which were located near the railroad (HHPC 1996). Around this time, a Black neighborhood that
became known as Brooklyn began to form near the rail line by Seventh Avenue.
1920 to Present. 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 1920s, the area began to undergo rapid land purchasing and
development that all came to a halt with the Depression, leaving structures incomplete and many unable to
continue developing their newly purchased land.
In the late -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. In the 1940s and 1950s, small "vest pocket" dams were constructed on the
smaller creeks (Brewer and Brewer 1975:246).
Henderson County was slow to recover from the Depression. Civic improvement projects utilizing
federal relief helped to stabilize the economy, and the Civilian Conservation Corps also hired men to assist
with the reforestation of nearby forests. Improvements to the Asheville -Henderson airport and the
construction of a stone gymnasium for the Hendersonville High School were also among these projects
(HHPC 1996). Tourism slowed during the Depression and continued to stagnate throughout World War II,
but by the 1950s, tourists and retirees began to flock to the area.
As of 2019, the population of Henderson County is estimated to be 117,417 (U.S. Census Bureau).
Henderson County is well known for its apple production. The cooler climate of the area is conducive to
large-scale apple agriculture and much of its land is dedicated to orchards. The North Carolina Apple
Festival is held each year in the fall, bringing thousands of tourists to the area. Manufacturing provides a
large amount of employment in the area, but tourism is the key economic contributor. Mountain
communities such as Bat Cave and Chimney Rock are visited year around by those seeking the beautiful
scenery. Author Carl Sandburg's home and farm in Flat Rock are a preserved historic site, and the Flatrock
Playhouse, hosting plays since the 1940s, is the official state theater of North Carolina. The majority of the
county is also within reasonable commuting distance to Asheville, where universities and tourism provide
abundant employment.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
25

Chapter 3. Background Research Results
Archaeological background research was conducted at the North Carolina site files located at the
Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh and through the Department of Cultural Resources Survey
and Planning Divisions online historic resource database (HPOWEB). Fifteen archaeological sites have
been recorded within 1.6 kilometers of the project tract (Table 3.1; Figure 3.1). Several of the sites were
recorded or revisited during cultural resource surveys. Seven sites (31HN14, 31HN75-79, and 31HN93-95)
were investigated during a survey of the NC 280 corridor improvements (Bernhardt 1979, Hammond 1980).
Their survey corridor included the portion of the Boylston Highway that abuts the current project tract.
None of the archaeological sites identified by Bernhardt (1979) and Hammond (1980) are within the current
project tract boundaries. Sites 31HN173 and 31HN174 were recorded during a survey for NC 191 and
Stoney Mountain Road (DiGregorio et al. 2002). Reid (2009) recorded 31HN265 as part of a survey for the
French Broad River intake corridor.
Table 3.1. Recorded Archaeological Sites Within 1.6 Kilometers of the Project Tract.
Site Number
Description
NRHP Eli ibility
31HN14
Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Woodland Lithic Scatter
Not Eligible
31HN36
Prehistoric Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
31HN45
Prehistoric Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
31HN70
Middle Woodland Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
31HN75
Late Archaic Prehistoric Lithic Scatter, Historic Ceramic Scatter
Not Eligible
31HN76
Earl -Middle Archaic, Woodland Artifact Scatter
Not Eligible
31HN78
Historic Railroad Bed
Unassessed
31HN79
Middle Woodland, Mississippian Artifact Scatter, Historic Artifact Scatter
Not Eligible
31HN87
Middle Archaic, Early Woodland Lithic Scatter, Historic Ceramic Scatter
Unassessed
31HN93
Unknown Prehistoric Lithic Scatter
Not Eli ible
31HN95
Historic Ceramic Isolated Find
Not Eligible
31HN173
19a' — 20a' Century Artifact Scatter
Not Eligible
31HN174
19a'— 20a' Century House Site
Not Eligible
31HN195
Middle -Late Archaic, Mississippian Artifact Scatter
No Data
31HN265
Late Archaic, Mississippian Artifact Scatter, 2011' Century Artifact Scatter
Unassessed
Most of the sites are clustered in the Mills River floodplain northeast of the project area; three were
recorded along Sweetwater Branch southwest of the project tract. Eleven of the sites yielded prehistoric
artifacts dating between the Early Archaic through Mississippian periods. The historic remains date to the
nineteenth or twentieth century. Eight sites have been recommended not eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP), and six are unassessed for NRHP eligibility. Site 31HN195 has no data
regarding a NRHP eligibility and is considered unassessed. None of these resources will be impacted by
the proposed development.
Fifteen historic resources have been documented within 1.6 kilometers of the project tract (Table 3.2).
These resources include eleven houses, two churches, a store, and a dairy. Four resources, HN0247,
HN1112, HN1126, and HN1154, are noted as having been destroyed. Ten of the remaining resources are
classified as Survey Only (SO). One resource, the Mills River Chapel (Resource HN0044), is listed on the
NRHP. This church is an 1860 Greek Revival building located northeast of the project tract. None of these
resources will be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed development.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
26

ac
/r r �� � 1011 •`�'i� � �' +� 31 H N45 i - �--ti � �-+'r.+_ � �1 ' j o � j a
_ � f
/
I
+
�1�. HN1126
/ HN1130a
L
31HN795
• i .1 A { 1 ;/�+ :A 31HN93 31HN87 r
F ilr /ri!{i r ,li Mills River Chapel �•, HN0247al�r pa� 31HN265 f
HN0044
HN1195
+�I �ti�
31HN173
�Slr � jf (/� _ �, i /' ` I � . • `_' � � \'f - V ' � r ��� ._� �i�� - 7rair�r l
LHT 162
�Y ff* -,\il " �'� i _ Y �✓ �/�r i1 L133k t 211
Ken�i�r
HN1154 HN1220 �I w i, i ` 4 r• l�
HN1281 y
�
�f1�USE..=
iHN1224
���
1 HN1112 { 1�\ ty J Y I r l
hr
31HN75 HN1114 i e�
L�� /\ l � p•
�-• \ 31HN76 `� � " �• r�! _ � f — Lam~
I o ! 31HN78 Frs Boylston Development Tract
� 1 1/T1 •_ �^\ �° p"
V . 9 �� P �/ o O Project Tract ♦ Hislonc Resource
HN1278 / l — Mills River Chapel = Previously Recorded Site
0 350 700 1,050 1,400
Meters s
Figure 3.1. Map showing the previously recorded cultural resources within 1.6 kilometers of the
project area (1965 Skyland, NCUSGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle [pr1991]).
Table 3.2. Summary of Historic Resources Documented Within 1.6 Kilometers of the Protect Tract.
Resource
Number
Description
NRHP Eligibility
Status
HN0044
Mills River Chapel, 1860 Greek Revival Church
Listed
11N0247
Dr. Solomon E. Greenwood House, 1905 Queen Anne, Gone
Destroyed
HN1112
Carland House, Gone
Destroyed
HN1114
Carson House
Survey Only
HN1119
Corpening House
Survey Only
HN1126
Davenport's Store, Gone
Destroyed
HN1130
Dillard House
Survey Only
HN1154
Hall Log House, Gone
Destroyed
HN1185
Harry Jones House
Survey Only
HN1195
Martin Kimzey House
Survey Only
HN1220
Mills River Presbyterian Church and Cemetery
Survey Only
HN1221
Moore Brothers Dairy
Survey Only
HN1224
Nichols -Heffner House, 19'-20' Century traditional/vernacular
Survey Only
HN1278
Warlick House, 19'li-20' Century traditionaUvernacular
Survey Only
HN1281
Whitaker House
Survey Only
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
27

Historic maps reviewed for this project include the county highway and soil maps dating to the early
twentieth century, and topographic maps dating back to 1936. The 1907 Henderson County soil map (Figure
3.2) and 1938 Henderson County highway map (Figure 3.3) do not show any structures located within the
project tract. No structures are present in the project tract on the 1936 Skyland, NC topographic map (Figure
3.4). A structure first appears along the western tract boundary on the 1965 topographic map (Figure 3.5).
The 1978 photorevised topographic map shows the same structure as well as the addition of the landing
strip extending through the project tract (Figure 3.6). A second structure, likely an airplane hangar, appears
on the 1991 photorevised topographic map (Figure 3.7). Based on the map data, the landing strip was built
in the 1970s. As discussed in the previous chapter, the hangar was destroyed by 2005.
-96
- 6--
1907 Soil Map
p O Project Tract
M 0 100 200 300 400
s
Meters
Figure 3.2. 1907 soil map of the project area (Hearn and MacNider 1907).
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
28

R
R
r r r
28CI
� y
WE lkq dl r r
1k
#�*+ t
,}6 k
* R
• * _ f n
rt 9938 Highway Map
I■ r � Project Tract
y k 0 100 200 300 400
f
+ Meters
Figure 3.3. 1938 highway map of the project area (NCSHPW 1938).
'Mills River Ch
fi
�f � •l
100
Ards
�f1 �
�/
Nr ��
,1f North Mills
�. River Ch
r,# 1936 Topo
r M Project Tract
ii��••■
ilia 0 75 950 225,300 N, L
Meters s
Figure 3.4. 1936 topographic map showing the project area (1936 Skyland, NC
USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
Ot

' � q
4P
CO
o -
-eL
iver
1965 Topo
■
� o � Project Tract a`�
USE + �� O 0 75 150 225 300
a,— Ann• • all Meters
Figure 3.5. 1965 topographic map showing the project area (1965 Skyland, NC
USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).
■
■
,iI ap yyLL
r� � • � 1`
v
ti
f � v
s iver
w f l
G
1978 Topo
It pf Project Tracl
r fG+� • Is
0 75 150 225 300
1~ ■ • � Meters
Figure 3.6. 1978 topographic map showing the project tract (1965 Skyland, NC
USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle [pr 1978]).
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
30

r �
r� 1 � •
i � f
p1 T
1328
CIO
CO..,.: f
r y
_ o
1991 Topo
! * R
Project Tract
75 150 225 300
Ti `r L� �� f ■ w Meters
It
Figure 3.7. 1991 topographic map showing the project tract (1965 Skyland, NC USGS 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangle [pr1991]).
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
31

Chapter 4. Archaeological Survey Results
This investigation resulted in the comprehensive survey of the 12.5-acre (5.1-ha) Boylston
Development tract in Henderson County, North Carolina (Figure 4.1). Prior to beginning field work, factors
such as soil drainage, topography, and proximity to water were used to define portions of the project tract
that had high potential for the presence of archaeological deposits. For this project, the entire tract was
considered to have high archaeological potential (see Figure 1.5).
a pe
co
•i ///
■
-- — ; 31HN316
9ti r
13
f fw ■ �4
�� lV
Boylston Development Tract
�.+ = Project Tract
E
—Archaeological Site
0 75 150 225 300
Meters
r r
Figure 4.1. Map showing the survey areas and the identified archaeological site (1965 Skyland, NC
USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle [pr1991]).
In total, 117 shovel tests were excavated in the project tract (Figure 4.2). Shovel test soil profiles in
the southern corner of the tract consisted of 25 to 30 centimeters of yellowish brown (10YR5/4) fine sandy
loam overlaying light olive brown (2.5YR5/6) silty clay. Soils on the former landing strip consisted of 10
centimeters of strong brown (7.5YR4/6) sandy loam overlaying yellowish red (5YR5/8) sandy clay. Soils
on the upper slopes in the northern portion of the tract consisted of 28 centimeters of strong brown
(7.5YR4/6) silty loam overlaying brownish yellow (10YR6/6) silty clay. One shovel test was excavated in
the wooded northwest corner of the tract. This area consisted of a wetland, a drainage, steep slope, and the
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
32

31HN318
y�x
oc
` Boylston Development Tract
Project Tract • Excavated ST
OArchaeological Site • Not Excavated ST
0 25 50 75 100
WF.
Meters s
Figure 4.2. Map showing shovel tests excavated within the project area.
concrete building pad. The single shovel test excavated in the wetland area exposed 20 centimeters of dark
grayish brown (10YR4/2) clay mottled with yellowish red (7.5YR6/8) and light gray (2.5Y7/1) clay.
Reddish yellow (7.5YR6/8) clay was present below that depth. Views of the soil profiles encountered are
presented in Figure 4.3.
As noted in the previous chapter, the former airstrip extending through the property was constructed
in the 1970s, and its associated hangar was constructed sometime after 1978 and destroyed by 2005.
Remains of the structure consist of a tiered concrete pad, taxi way, and a wall outline measuring
approximately 100 meters long and 20 to 30 meters wide. As the structural remains are less than 50 years
of age, it was not recorded as an archaeological resource. No evidence of the structure shown on the 1965
topographic map (see Figure 3.5) was identified. It was possibly destroyed during construction of the
hangar. One prehistoric site, 31HN318, was identified in the northeastern corner of the project tract. This
site is discussed in detail below.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
33

YY 1 'VA '�M,1 �` �'>`b"'.`+�.lf' ww�•.,��
F-
�qr
W
,.
a
lunw
I
ram'
YA
,��{ yrig r� .
k-
'!
Ali, , • � l � •Vf y .� ,,
�G,
µ r
Top (L): Southern tract corner soil profile, Top (R): Landing strip soil profile
Bottom (L): Upper slope soil proille, Bottom (R): Northwest corner [wetland] soil profile
Figure 4.3. Views of soil profiles in the survey area.
Site 31HN318
Site Type: Prehistoric Lithic Scatter UTM Coords (NAD83): 357055 E 3916470 N
Component: Unknown Prehistoric Elevation: 653 in amsl
NRHP Recommendation: Not Eligible Soil Type: Bradson gravelly loam
Site 31HN318 is a prehistoric lthic scatter identified in the northeastern corner of the project tract.
The site is situated in a grassy field on a relatively level terrace. Immediately northeast of the site is a slight
rise to a parking lot and commercial property that was constructed circa 2015. Approximately 10 meters
northwest of the site deposits the landform slopes up approximately 3 meters to the former landing strip.
The Boylston Highway is approximately 40 meters to the southeast.
Seven shovel tests were excavated at 10-meter intervals in the site area. Site delineation could not be
conducted to the northeast due to the property line and paved parking lot. One positive shovel test resulted
om site boundaries measuring 10 by 10 meters. Shovel test soil profiles consisted of 30 centimeters of dark
yellowish brown (10YR4/6) silty loam overlaying brownish yellow (10YR6/6) silty clay. Figure 4.4
presents the site plan map and views of the soil profile and site setting.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
34

Figure 4.4. Plan map of Site 31MA879.
Two quartz flakes/flake fragments were recovered from the positive shovel test. Neither artifact is
culturally diagnostic. The artifacts were recovered between depths of 0 and 30 centimeters below the ground
surface.
Site 31HN318 is unknown prehistoric lithic scatter with a very low artifact density. No diagnostic
artifacts, cultural features, or organic remains were identified. Although the site delineation could not be
conducted to northeast, it is likely that any deposits extending into the adjacent property have been severely
disturbed or destroyed by construction of the parking lot and commercial building. This site will not yield
new or significant data pertaining to the prehistory of the region and is recommended not eligible for the
NRHP.
Boylston Development Tract
lnc. Henderson County, North Carolina
35

Summary and Recommendations
On 8 and 9 December 2021, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted an
archaeological survey of the Boylston Development tract in Henderson County, North Carolina. The project
tract measures 12.5 acres (5.1 ha). No previously recorded archaeological sites or historic resources are
present in the project tract. One prehistoric lithic scatter, site 31HN318, was identified during this
investigation. This site has no further research potential and is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. As
no significant archaeological resources will be impacted by the proposed development, no further work is
advocated.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
36

References Cited
Adair, James
1775 The History of the American Indians. Private publication, London, reprinted in 1930 by
Promontory Press, New York.
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 Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah
River Basin. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286.
Ashe, Samuel A'Court
1925 A History of North Carolina, two volumes, Greensboro, NC.
Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, and Nick Bon -Harper
2021 Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) Cataloging Manual:
Ceramics. Electronic document, http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/
Ceramics.pdf.
Beck, Robin A., Moored, David G., and Christopher Rodning
2006 Identifying Fort San Juan: A Sixteenth -Century Spanish Occupation at the Berry Site, North
Carolina. In Southeastern Archaeology 25(1):65-77.
Bell, John L.
1987 Economic Activities. In The History of Jackson County, edited by M. R. Williams. Jackson
County Historical Society, Sylva, NC.
Bernhardt, Jack E.
1979 A Cultural Resources Survey: Proposed Improvements along NC 280, Transylvania and
Henderson Counties, North Carolina. Soil Systems, Inc. Marietta, GA.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1): 4-20.
Bishir, Catherine W., Michael T. Southern, and Jennifer F. Martin
1999 A Guide to the Historic Architecture of Western North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
37

Blackmun, Ora
1977 Western North Carolina: Its Mountains and Its People to 1880. Appalachian Consortium
Press, Boone, NC.
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 (editors)
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Brewer, Alberta and Carson Brewer
1975 Valley So Wilda 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.
The University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological
Studies 9. Columbia.
Brown, Ann R.
1982 Historic Ceramic Typology with Principal Dates of Manufacture and Descriptive
Characteristics for Identification. Delaware Department of Transportation Archaeology Series.
Broyles, Bettye J.
1981 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown.
Butler, William B.
1987 Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process. In American Antiquity 52(4): 820-
829.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of Eastern United
States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp. 312-321. University of Chicago Press, IL.
Charles, Tommy and Christopher R. Moore
2018 Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tools of South Carolina. Piedmont Archaeological Studies Trust,
Glendale SC.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Tellico Archaeology: 12,000 Years ofNative American History. Tennessee Valley Authority
no. 41. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, MI.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
38

Clayton, Frederick V.
1988 Settlement in Pendleton District, 1777-1800. Southern Historical Press, Easley, SC.
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
Corbitt, David Leroy
1987 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties 1663-1943. North Carolina Department
of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Corkran, David H.
1967 The Cherokee Frontier: Conflict and Survival, 1740-1762. University of Oklahoma,
Norman.
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.
InStriae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14, edited by L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo, pp. 144-
150.
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
2021 Time, Typology, and Point Traditions in North Carolina Archaeology: Formative Cultures
Reconsidered. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent
CumberlandPlateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.
Delcourt, Paul A. and Hazel R. Delcourt
1987 Long -Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late Quaternary
Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies 63. Springer-Verlag, New York.
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.
DiGregorio, Giampaolo, Scott Seibel, and Greg C. Smith
2002 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey: NC 191 (Haywood Road) and Stoney Mountain Road,
Henderson County, North Carolina. Environmental Services, Inc. Raleigh, NC.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
39

Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological Context
and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Driver, J. C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada. Quaternary
International 49 :141-15 0.
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.
Farlow, Betsy, Dan Lane, and Duane Oliver
1993 Haywood Homes and History. Farlow, Lane, and Oliver, Hazelwood, NC.
Feldhues, William J.
1995 Guide to Identifying and Dating Historic Glass and Ceramics. Archaeological Resources
Management Service, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.
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.
Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)
2009 Digital Type Collection. Electronic document. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/
hi starch/gallery_type s/.
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Occasional Paper. Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.P.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark
Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
40

Garren, Terrell T.
2006 Mountain Myth: Unionism in Western North Carolina. The Reprint Company,
Spartanburg, SC.
Glassow, Michael A.
1977 Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. In American Antiquity
42(3): 413-420.
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
Griffin, James B.
1952 Archaeology of the Eastern United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
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.
Goodyear, Albert C.
2006 Evidence for Pre -Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael
R. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Hammond, Michael
1980 Addendum to Revised Project Report: A Cultural Resources Survey, Proposed Improvement
along NC 280, Transylvania and Henderson Counties, North Carolina. Soil Systems, Inc.
Marietta, GA.
Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An Archaeological Survey ofProposedlmprovements on the Gastonia Sewer System, Gaston
County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.
Hearn, W. Edward and G. M. MacNider
1907 Soil Map, North Carolina, Henderson County. United States Department of Agriculture.
Washington, D.C.
Hendersonville Historic Preservation Commission (HHPC)
1996 History and Architecture of Hendersonville, North Carolina. Mattson, Alexandar and
Associates, Inc. Charlotte, NC. Online Document,
http://www.hendersonvillchpc.org/hendersonville.
Herbert, Joseph M.
2009 Woodland Potters and Archaeological Ceramics of the North Carolina Coast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hudson, Charles M.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
41

Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando de Soto Expedition: From Apalachee to Chiaha. In Southeastern Archaeology
3:65-77.
Jackson, L. E., F. M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E. C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C1 Dating of the Foothills Erratics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 125: 73-
94.
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapters
—ASV's 1993 and 1995 Excavations. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, CactusHill,
Sussex County, Virginia, edited by J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, Appendix G. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.
Keel, Bennie
1976 Cherokee Archaeology. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Keel, Bennie C. and Brian J. Egloff
1984 The Cane Creek Site, Mitchell County, North Carolina. In Southern Indian Studies
33:3-44.
Kephart, Horace
1976 Our Southern Highlanders. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
King, John M.
1980 Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service.
Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.
Lewis, Thomas M.N. and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183.
Majewski, Teresita and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth -Century English and American Ceramics in
Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by
Michael B. Schiffer, pp.257-314. Academic Press, New York.
May, J. Alan
1989 Archaeological Excavations at the Crowders Creek Site (31GS55): A Late Woodland
Farmstead in the Catawba River Valley, Gaston County, North Carolina. Southern Indian
Studies 38.
McAvoy, J. M. And L. D. McAvoy, editors
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
42

McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre -Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special
Attentionto a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 yr B.P. Jeffersoniana 9:1-59. Contributions from the
Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville.
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.
Meltzer, David J., D. K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A. W. Barker, D. F. Dincause, C. V. Haynes, F. Mena, L.
Nunez, and D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde. Southern Chile. American Antiquity 44(1):
172-179
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.
1986 The Pisgah Phase: Cultural Continuity in the Appalachian Summit? In The Conference on
Cherokee Prehistory, pp. 73-80. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
1994 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's View of Colonial Life and History. University Press
of Virginia, Charlottesville.
North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission
1938 Henderson County, North Carolina. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works
Commission, Raleigh.
Oliver, Billy L.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
1999 Typology. Paper presented at the Uwharries Lithics Research Conference, February 25,
1999.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
43

O'Steen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian and
Early Archaic Southeast. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, editors. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Peck, Rodney M.
1982 Indian Projectile Point Types from Virginia and the Carolinas. Privately printed.
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 ofthe Georgia Academy ofScience 33:1-19.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh.
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.
Quarterman, Elsie and Katherine Keever
1962 Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest: Climax in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Ecological
Monographs 32:167-185.
Reid, Dawn
2009 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed French Broad River Water Intake Corridor,
Henderson County, North Carolina. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. Clayton,
NC.
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.
Royce, Charles C.
1975 The Cherokee Nation oflndians. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, IL. Reprint of the
1887 edition.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in South Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished M.A. Thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
44

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, Interagency Resources Division,
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 US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.
Sheldon, Elizabeth S.
1983 Vegetational History of the Wallace Reservoir. Early Georgia 11(1-2):19-31.
Smathers, George H.
1938 The History ofLand Titles in Western North Carolina. Miller Printing Company, Asheville,
NC.
South, Stanley
1977 An Archaeological Survey of Southeastern Coastal North Carolina. The Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology Notebook 8:1-55. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series 165. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
2004 John Bartlam: Staffordshire in Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 231. 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, Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, and D. Gentry Steele
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican Origins:
Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael
R. Waters, pp. 313-353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Swanton, John R.
1979 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C. Reprint of the 1946 edition.
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)
2021 Web Soil Survey, Electronic Document. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1936 Skyland, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
45

United States Geological Survey (USGS) continued
1965 Skyland, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.
1965 Skyland, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (photorevised 1978).
1965 Skyland, NC 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (photorevised 1991).
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.
Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Whatley, John S.
2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. In Early Georgia
Volume 30, Number 1. Society for Georgia Archaeology, Athens, GA
Williams, Samuel Cole
1930 Early Travels in Tennessee Country. Williams Publishing. Nashville, Tennessee.
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.
Boylston Development Tract
Inc. Henderson County, North Carolina
46

Appendix A. Artifact Catalog

Artifact Catalog
Boylson Development Tract
Site Number 311IN318
Provenience Number: 1.1 Site 1, N500 E500, TR12 ST5, 0-20 cm
Catalog Specimen
Number Number Quantity Weight (g) Description Comments
ml 2 5.8 Quartz Flake/Flake Fragment
Page 1 of 1

Appendix B. Resume of Principal Investigator

Michael Keith O'Neal
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Voice [phone]; Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
EDUCATION
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2001.
B.A. in Anthropology, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 1999.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Register of Professional Archaeologists North Carolina Archaeological Council
Society for American Archaeology -Secretary/Treasurer 2013-2015
Southeastern Archaeological Conference -Chair 2016-2018
Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists -Vice-Chair 2019-present
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Ground Stone Technology
Lithic Technology
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
July 2020-Present Vice-President/Principal Investigator. Archaeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Clayton, Inc.
April 2006-June 2019 Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator. Archaeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.
August 2004-March 2006 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas,
Inc., Clayton, NC.
June 2002-August 2004 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.
July 2001-May 2002 Archaeological Technician. Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.
August 2000-May 2001 Archaeological Research Assistant, Department of Anthropology, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville.
August 2000-September 2000 Archaeological Technician, Department of Anthropology, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville.
July 2000 Archaeological Field Technician, SPEARS Inc., West Fork, Arkansas.

Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II)
Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), SCE&G (Columbia), and others — serving
in all capacities including Principal Investigator
Transportation Corridors for South Carolina Department of Transportation (Columbia), North Carolina
Department of Transportation (Raleigh)— serving as archaeological technician
Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies including the
USFS (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina) and the USACE (Wilmington District) — serving in all
capacities including Principal Investigator
Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) - Representative Examples
Prehistoric Camp (38HR496) and 19d' century sawmill (38HR490) in Horry County, South Carolina — serving
as Archaeological Technician
Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA — serving as Field Director
Prehistoric village (310N1578) and late 181/early 191 century plantation (310N1582) for R.A.
Management, Charlotte, NC — serving as Field Director/Crew Chief
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMINHSSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS
Duke Energy - Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina- serving as Field Director/Crew Chief
PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED
2008 Michael Keith O'Neal
Putting the Tar in Tar Heels: The Naval Stores Industry and Plantations in North Carolina. Paper presented at the
65' annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
2005 Michael K. O'Neal and Dawn Reid
Who Says There Aren't Rocks in the Coastal Plain?: Local Lithic Resources and Bipolar Reduction Strategies in
Horry County, South Carolina. Paper presented at the 62nd annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Columbia, South Carolina.
1999 Cheryl Claassen, Michael O'Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth Arnold, and Brent Lansdell
Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC from 1983 through 1995
and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 18(2): 85-97.
1998 Cheryl Claassen, Michael O'Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth Arnold, and Brent Lansdell
Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC from 1983 through 1995
and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. Paper presented at the 55' annual Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Greenville, South Carolina.
** A full listing of projects and authored reports available upon request