20211421 Ver 1_70227103_RollingMeadowsReport_03-10-22_20221027

Archaeological Survey Report
Rolling Meadows
Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022
Terracon Project No. 70227103
Prepared for:
Water & Land Solutions
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Terri Russ, RPA
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107
Raleigh, NC 27604

Archaeological Survey Terracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of an intensive archaeological investigation for Rolling Meadows,
a proposed wetland restoration project located along Reedy Creek in Davidson County, North
Carolina. This investigation was conducted by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) of Raleigh,
North Carolina, on behalf of Water & Land Solutions (Corps Action ID Number SAW-2021-01538).
Work was performed in accordance with procedures and policies established by the North
Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) for compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended.
The goal of the current investigation was to identify and assess the significance of cultural
resources (archaeological sites) that may occur within the areas of proposed ground disturbance
(herein "project area"). "Significant" cultural resources are those meeting the criteria of eligibility
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 and in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO; ER 22-0175). The following report
was prepared in accordance with federal and state guidelines.
Field methods used during the investigation included pedestrian inspection and shovel testing.
Field investigations were conducted from February 28 to March 3, 2022 by Terri Russ (Field
Director and Principal Investigator), Becky Sponseller (Crew Chief), and Kristin Doshier.
As a result of the investigation, 176 shovel tests were excavated and one new archaeological site
was recorded within the project area (Table A). Terracon recommends this site as Not Eligible for
the NRHP.
Terracon recommends that the project be granted clearance to proceed without concern for
impacts to significant archaeological resources. Should the proposed project area be expanded,
additional coordination with SHPO should occur to ensure that these actions do not adversely
affect significant archaeological resources.
Table A: Summary of Site Data
Site Cultural Affiliation Site Type Recommendations
31 DV769 Precontact: Lithic; Woodland Limited Activity Not Eligible; NFW*
* NFW.- No Further Work

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY........................................................................................................i
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1.1
2. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND................................................................................2.1
Physiographyand Geology..................................................................................................2.1
Hydrology.............................................................................................................................2.1
Soils.....................................................................................................................................2.1
Wildlife.................................................................................................................................2.2
CurrentLand Use.................................................................................................................2.2
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS..................................3.1
Pre -Clovis Period (???-10,000 B.C.)...................................................................................3.1
Paleoindian Period (10,000-8000 B.C.)...............................................................................3.1
Archaic Period (8000-1000 B.C.).........................................................................................3.2
Woodland Period (1000 B.C.—A.D. 1000).............................................................................3.6
HistoricPeriod......................................................................................................................3.9
HistoricalMaps...................................................................................................................3.11
Archaeological Potential and Expectations.........................................................................3.12
4. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS........................................................................................4.1
5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.................................................................5.1
Background Research..........................................................................................................5.1
FieldMethodology................................................................................................................5.1
LaboratoryMethodology.......................................................................................................5.1
Curation...........................................................................................................................5.2
Archaeological Site Descriptions..........................................................................................5.2
Archaeological Site Definitions and Evaluations...................................................................5.2
6. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS....................................................................................6.1
31 DV769..............................................................................................................................6.2
7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................7.1
REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................
R.1
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN ..............................................
A.1
APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT PHOTOGRAPHS.................................................................B.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Page
Figure 1.1:
Project Vicinity.................................................................................................
1.1
Figure1.2:
Topographic Map............................................................................................
1.1
Figure 2.1:
NRCS Soils.....................................................................................................2.1
Figure 3.1:
Historical Maps................................................................................................
3.11
Figure 3.2:
Aerial Photographs..........................................................................................3.12
Figure 6.1:
Shovel Test Locations.....................................................................................6.1
Figure 6.2:
Archaeological Site Location...........................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.3:
Project Area Photographs...............................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.4:
Project Area Photographs...............................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.5:
Project Area Photographs...............................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.6:
Project Area Photographs...............................................................................
6.1
Figure 6.7:
Representative Shovel Test Photographs.......................................................
6.1
Figure 6.8:
Archaeological Site Plan.................................................................................6.2
Figure 6.9:
Archaeological Site Photographs....................................................................
6.2
Figure 6.10:
Archaeological Site Photographs...................................................................6.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table A: Summary of Site Data..............................................................................i
Table 2.1: NRCS Soils........................................................................................2.1
Table 4.1: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within
One Mile of the Project Area..............................................................4.1
Table 6.1: Site 31 DV769 Artifacts.............................................................................6.3
Table 7.1: Summary of Site Data...........................................................................7.1
iv

Archaeological Survey Terracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of an archaeological investigation of the areas of proposed
ground disturbance for the Rolling Meadows wetland mitigation and restoration project located
along Reedy Creek in Davidson County, North Carolina. The project site consists of an
approximately 51.8-acre proposed mitigation area and conservation easement encompassing a
portion of Reedy Creek and associated tributaries (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Although the
surrounding conservation easement encompasses an approximately 51.8-acre area, the
proposed areas of subsurface disturbance are limited to the drainageways and adjacent floodplain
proposed for wetland re-establishment (see Appendix A for proposed wetland restoration plan).
This archaeological investigation was conducted by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) of
Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of Water & Land Solutions to comply with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended). Fieldwork was designed to comply
with guidelines established by the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and
in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Office of State Archaeology
(OSA; ER 22-0175).
The goal of the archaeological investigation was to identify and assess the significance of cultural
resources (archaeological sites) that might occur within the project area. "Significant" cultural
resources are those meeting the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Registerof Historic
Places (NRHP), as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 and in consultation with the SHPO. Section 106 of
NHPA requires that the effect of a project on significant cultural resources be considered on all
projects involving federal funding or permitting. The guidelines for fulfilling the provisions of
Section 106 are contained in the implementing regulations 36 CFR 800.
Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, background research was conducted, including a search of
archaeological site files by OSA staff on behalf of Terracon. Field methods employed by Terracon
during the investigation included systematic visual (pedestrian) inspection combined with shovel
testing. Areas of clear visibility were inspected for historic structures, artifacts, and other signs of
precontact or historic period cultural activity. Shovel tests were excavated at 25-meter intervals
within the proposed areas of disturbance in well -drained, level areas of poor surface visibility and
undisturbed soils. No shovel testing was conducted within active wetlands or areas of standing or
surface water.
A total of 176 shovel tests were excavated during the investigation. Shovel tests measured
approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were dug to one meter, the water table, or sterile
subsoil. Field investigations were conducted from February 28 to March 3, 2022 by Terri Russ
(Field Director and Principal Investigator), Becky Sponseller (Crew Chief), and Kristin Doshier.

Pa Run
N
\
Advance
/
/
r
\
Welcome
�
Q
�
a
\
N
l
`
'I r52
ti
1 W us H,ghWay 64
Legend
QConservation Easement Boundary
�F
y'ehy,oy
SourcesgEsri, HERE, •G-armin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, 6.
Esri Japan METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),
NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 1.25 2.5
i Miles
5
Drwn: MM
_�
Project Vicinity
FIGURE
Ferracon
Chkd:
TR
.
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
g 1
1.1
Project "
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

C-� �•�` �. � Jr- � �' 1, �,�� � Lam' , �'' l \� .: � �
IJ
-14--
L--:f
-_ ' 4 , ..`/ J/� - _ J = _•-_ _ ���� � r. _ \ 1, r.
1
Copyright:© 2013 Natiolnal Geographic Society, i-cubed
Legend Miles
QConservation Easement Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 1
Drwn: MM
Topographic Map
FIGURE
rerracon
Chkd:
TR
.
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
g 1
1•2
Project N
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
2. ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
Physiography and Geology
The project area is located within the Piedmont physiographic province. The landscape of the
Piedmont region consists of gently sloping to rolling topography with low ridges. Low mountains,
including the Uwharrie Mountains and South Mountains, are also situated within the Piedmont
province (NCDEQ 2015). Elevations within the proposed conservation easement range from 695
to 762 feet above mean sea level (amsl).
The project area falls between areas of the Charlotte Terrane and is mapped as an area of
Paleozoic intrusions (NCDEQ 2016). These formations generally consist of granite and
granodiorite extruded during the formation of the Appalachians 280 to 320 million years ago.
These intrusions contain quartz, feldspar, and mica (all of which were observed during the current
investigation).
Hydrology
The project area is located within the Yadkin -Pee Dee River drainage basin and includes Reedy
Creek and associated tributaries.
Soils
Soil development is dependent upon biotic and abiotic factors that include past geologic activities,
nature of parent material, environmental and human influences, plant and animal activity, age of
sediments, climate, and topographic position. A general soil association contains one or more
mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape position. The map units (soil series) are
named for the major soil or soils within the unit but may have minor inclusions of other soils. The
soil map for Davidson County shows six soil units occurring within the proposed conservation
easement (NRCS 2021; Table 2.1; Figure 2.1). Only approximately 47 percent of this area is
mapped as having well drained soils. The remainder of the conservation easement consists of
somewhat poorly drained and frequently flooded Chewacla loam.
Table 2.1: Project Area Soils
Code
Name
Slope
Landform
Drainage
ChA
Chewacla loam, frequently flooded
0-2%
Floodplains
Somewhat poorly
PaB
Pacolet sandy loam
2-8%
Interfluves
Well drained
PaD
Pacolet sandy loam
8-15%
HiIlslopes on ridges
Well drained
PaE
Pacolet sandy loam
15-25%
HiIlslopes on ridges
Well drained
VaB
Vance sandy loam
2-8%
Interfluves
Well drained
WeB
Wedowee sandy loam
2-8%
Interfluves
Well drained
2.1

SfB,
A
IF
VaDr'
NYa
' ChA
} VaB
t
SfB ! W
A
a6 -
WeB PaB
PaE
We'D �� Mr
WeB WeD' j
WeD
� P1,
PaB
Soil Mapping Units
ChA Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded
PaB Pacolet sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
_ PaD Pacolet sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
PaE Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
SfB Sedgefield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VaD Vance sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
WeB Wedowee sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
` PaB WeD Wedowee sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
Legend
Conservation Easement Boundary i Meters
0 125 250 500
NRCS Soil Boundary
Drwn: MM
NRCS Soils
FIGURE
ferracon
NO.
Chkd:
TR
�r
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
g J
2.1
Project N
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Wildlife
The following wildlife descriptions are summarized from Martof et al. (1980), Hamel (1992), Rohde
et al. (1994), and Palmer and Braswell (1995).
Mammals expected to occur in and around the project area include raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginanus), and Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana). Reptile species expected include, but are not limited to, black racer
(Coluber constrictor), eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling), green anole (Anolis carolinensis),
rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), and rat snake
(Pantherophis obsoleta). Terrestrial or arboreal amphibians expected to occur in and around the
project area include such species as southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) and spring peeper
(Pseudacris crucifer). Avian species expected include blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and various warblers
(Dendroica spp.), among others.
Current Land Use
The conservation easement consists of agricultural fields, fallow areas, and forested areas. The
northern portion of the conservation easement consists of active agricultural fields, with wooded
areas along the drainageways. The southern boundary of the conservation easement is primarily
hardwood forest, with beech and oak observed along the steep side slopes. The remaining
portions of the conservation easement consist of fallow former agricultural fields. These areas are
currently overgrown with various grasses, briars, and weeds. Larger saplings were observed
along the numerous ditches running through the fields. Representative project photographs can
be seen in Chapter 6.
2.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
3. CULTURAL BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Pre -Clovis Period (M-10,000 B.C.)
Claims of pre-10,000 B.C. human occupations in the New World have been met with considerable
skepticism in the past. However, there is growing evidence of human populations in the Americas
prior to the Clovis peoples. A number of sites in both North and South America apparently contain
pre -Clovis evidence. The Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania contains a reportedly pre -
Clovis occupation (Adovasio et al. 1990), as does the Cactus Hill site in Virginia, where quartzite
tools were recovered stratigraphically below a Clovis level (McAvoy 1997). Monte Verde is
perhaps the most famous of the possible pre -Clovis sites in South America, with an average
reported 14C date of 12,500 B.P. (Dillehay 1997).
It has been hypothesized that pre -Clovis populations in the Americas were relatively small,
resulting in low archaeological visibility. Additionally, a large problem with documenting pre -Clovis
occupation of the Americas is that large areas once open to occupation are now under many
meters of ocean. It is also theorized by some researchers that these peoples were quickly overrun
or absorbed by Clovis people (Fiedel 1999; Morrow and Morrow 1999:225).
Paleoindian Period (10,000-8000 B.C.)
At present, the earliest definitive evidence for human occupations in the southeastern United
States dates to the Paleoindian Period. During the Early Holocene (10,000-6000 B.C.), the
Southeast underwent a transition from a patchy boreal forest with open areas of savannah
(favorable to large game) to a more homogeneous oak -hickory forest, a transition basically
complete by 8000 B.C. (Watts et al. 1996; Delcourt and Delcourt 1985, 1987). Seasonal
fluctuations in temperature, which were relatively small during the late Pleistocene when
compared to present day, became more extreme at the Holocene onset (Delcourt and Delcourt
1985, 1987). Surface water was likely somewhat scarcer in this environment as compared to
modern conditions. The topographic environment during the Early Holocene of the southern
portion of North America, including the Southeast, was characterized by wide and deep valleys
and broad plains (Schuldenrein 1996:3). During the terminal Pleistocene, sea levels were on
average 70 meters below present day levels. Massive return of water to the oceans from retreating
ice sheets caused sea levels to rebound to within a few meters of present levels by ca. 7000 B.C.
(Delcourt and Delcourt 1985, 1987).
Due to massive reworking of the landscape during the Early and Mid -Holocene, a vast percentage
of Paleoindian archaeological sites have been either severely eroded or are deeply buried under
large amounts of Holocene sediments (Schuldenrein 1996:3). As such, our knowledge of the
Paleoindian Period in the Southeast is limited. Sites containing Paleoindian artifacts are located
in a variety of inland ecological and topographic settings.
3.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Anderson and colleagues (1990) have divided the Paleoindian tradition of the Southeast into three
subperiods based on diagnostic stone point types, since fluted and other lanceolate projectile
points and thumbnail endscrapers tend to be the only indisputable indicators of Paleoindian
activity. The Early Paleoindian (ca. 10,000-9000 B.C.) is characterized by Clovis points; the
Middle Paleoindian (ca. 9000-8500 B.C.) is characterized by points such as Cumberland,
Suwannee, Simpson, and Clovis -like variants; and the Late Paleoindian (ca. 8500-8000 B.C.) is
characterized by Dalton, Hardaway, and Hardaway -Dalton. Archaeological evidence from Florida
suggests that bone pins, stone knives, lithic scrapers, and atlatls were also used by Paleoindian
hunters.
Current theory holds that these early people likely maintained a generalized hunting and gathering
technology that enabled them to utilize a diverse range of micro -environments (Carbone 1983;
Anderson et al. 1990). It is well documented that Paleoindian populations coexisted with
Pleistocene megafauna such as mammoth, mastodon, giant ground sloth, and bison, although
the extent to which southeastern Paleoindian peoples exploited these now -extinct species is
unclear. The emergence of Dalton projectile points during the Late Paleoindian may indicate an
emphasis on hunting smaller game such as deer (Goodyear 1982). In general, limited data are
available for this early period, but it is suspected that settlements were small and briefly occupied,
and that material possessions were light and portable. Paleoindian assemblages consisted of
heavily curated tools of high-grade Iithic materials. Several researchers have suggested that high
quality stone quarries were a primary factor influencing Paleoindian settlement, with free -roaming
groups "loosely tethered" to a primary stone source (Dunbar and Waller 1983; Goodyear et al.
1989; Anderson et al. 1990).
No in situ archaeological remains of these earliest inhabitants have been recorded in North
Carolina. Evidence does exist, however, in the form of isolated examples of fluted points
recovered as surface finds. Some attempts have been made to compile distributions of these
early tools across the state. The first effort was made several decades ago by Perkinson (1971,
1973); a second study occurred at a larger regional level by Anderson, who attempted to elicit
interaction data from the known distribution of Paleoindian projectile points (Anderson 1990,
1995). Based on these and other investigations, site location and attribute data have been
recorded for several hundred fluted points found throughout North Carolina.
Archaic Period (8000-1000 B.C.)
The Archaic sequence of the Carolina Piedmont and adjacent areas was defined as a result of
excavations along the Yadkin and Pee Dee Rivers near Morrow Mountain State Park. These
excavations were conducted by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the Hardaway,
Doerschuk, and Lowder's Ferry sites (Coe 1964). The stratigraphy revealed at these sites allowed
construction of a temporal sequence from a "hodgepodge of projectile point types" previously
known only from surface collections and shallow plow zone deposits (Coe 1964). On the basis of
3.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
distinct artifact (mostly lithic) assemblages, archaeologists have divided the Archaic period into
three sub -periods: Early, Middle, and Late.
Early Archaic (8000-6000 B.C.)
The environmental conditions of the Early Holocene persisted into the Early Archaic Period. Sea
levels continued to rise at an appreciable rate as glacial conditions hastened their retreat,
apparently reaching levels within only a few meters of modern levels by 7000 B.C. (Delcourt and
Delcourt 1985, 1987). Additionally, oak -hickory forests continued to dominate the landscape. The
Eastern Woodlands experienced a trend of desiccation during the Early Holocene (Schuldenrein
1996:23). Early to Mid -Holocene dryness appears to have been more pronounced in places such
as Florida and the Georgia Coastal Plain than in the Carolinas (Watts et al. 1996:31).
There seems to be strong continuity between Early Archaic and previous Paleoindian lifeways in
that the earliest Archaic populations exhibit settlement and subsistence practices similar to those
of their Paleoindian predecessors. With the emergence of more numerous and diversified
ecological settings during the Early Archaic, regional specialization increased and promoted
greater interregional variation. Early Holocene populations are generally viewed as composed of
small, nomadic bands that followed seasonal rounds on the basis of resource abundance,
therefore occupying disparate geographic resource extraction locales throughout the year (Smith
1986:16-18). Familiarity with a specific region probably resulted in seasonal reuse of the same
resource locale. Settlement during the Early Archaic is often held to be primarily logistical, with
the use of winter base camps (Anderson and Hanson 1988; Cable 1992).
Three models have been developed in attempts to explain Early Archaic settlement patterning in
the Southeast: Effective Temperature/Technological Organization (Claggett and Cable 1982);
Wallace Reservoir (O'Steen 1983); and Band/Macroband (Anderson and Hanson 1988).
Similarities are greater than differences between the three models, which all interpret Early
Archaic lifeways as adaptations to factors such as environmental conditions and resource
allocation. These models likely cannot be applied to the Southeast as a whole, but instead to
different ways of life practiced by spatially and temporally spaced peoples. Within the Carolinas,
however, there is some debate about the nature of Early Archaic settlement. While some
researchers suggest that individual bands moved seasonally between the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain along major drainages (Anderson and Hanson 1988), others have proposed that group
movement was not confined to drainages and was more variable across the Piedmont and upper
Coastal Plain (Daniel 1998).
Artifacts of the Late Paleoindian and Early Archaic represent a transitional period in terms of the
stone tool assemblage, with projectile point shape shifting from lanceolate forms to notched
varieties. Early Archaic components are generally distinguished through the presence of distinct
projectile point types, specifically the Palmer Corner Notched and Kirk Corner Notched points,
3.3

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
with St. Albans, Le Croy, and Kanawah bifurcate based points occurring in lesser amounts (Coe
1964). Based on the degree of observable tool wear, it seems that Early Archaic tools underwent
extensive modification and reuse, characteristic of a high degree of curation (Amick and Carr
1996:43). After projectile points had outlived their utility as viable spear points, they were
frequently reworked into smaller tools such as drills, end scrapers, burins, and spokeshaves
(Smith 1986:10). The production of formal tools is seen as a response or adaptation to high rates
of residential mobility (Anderson 1990), while a proliferation of different projectile points during
the Early Archaic is seen as evidence of increased regional specialization.
Early Archaic technologies also included several unifacial tool types represented by a variety of
end and side scrapers. Some of these unifacial tools are fairly distinctive and share technological
similarities with Paleoindian assemblages (Coe 1964; Daniel 1998).
Although plant processing tools such as nutting stones, manos, metates, and cobbles have also
been recovered from Early Archaic contexts within South Carolina and Georgia, ground stone
artifacts from Early Archaic contexts are rare in North Carolina (Anderson and Schuldenrein 1983;
Goodyear et al. 1979:103-104; Daniel 1998).
Middle Archaic (6000-3000 B.C.)
The Middle Archaic Period occurred during the Mid -Holocene, a time period during which the
post -glacial environment of the southeast began to stabilize, eventually reaching nearly modern
conditions (Schuldenrein 1996:3). The major climatic event of the Middle Archaic is the Altithermal
(also known as the Hypsithermal and the Climatic Optimum), a warming and drying trend that
affected not only the Southeast, but also the continent as a whole. Pollen records from the
southeastern coastal plain and Florida evidence a replacement of the Early Holocene coastal
plain oak and hickory forest by pine and swamp forests during the Mid -Holocene (Watts et al.
1996:29), though this event was staggered across the region. Data concerning changes in
vegetation communities in the Piedmont regions are sparse; however, changes likely consisted
of an increase in the hardwood diversity of the forests.
Compared to the Early Archaic, during the Middle Archaic period, the scale of land use decreased,
use of local raw materials increased, technology became more expedient, and residential mobility
increased (Amick and Carr 1996:53). These changes are attributed by some to possible increases
in population densities (Sassaman et al. 1988). Middle Archaic cultures continued to exploit
upland terrestrial resources, but gradually added the procurement of interior riverine resources to
their subsistence schedule. At this time, some groups were also exploiting the abundant
resources of the Atlantic coastal estuaries (Russo 1992). The shift to the use of aquatic resources
(both riverine and coastal) is generally attributed to climatic change and sea level rise associated
with the warmer temperatures of the Altithermal (Smith 1986:22), which is seen by many as the
major event affecting human adaptation to environmental stress (Schuldenrein 1996:26). At this
3.4

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
time, there may also have been a concomitant decline in upland resource yields due to the lack
of rain (Smith 1986:22).
The Middle Archaic has been noted by many archaeologists as "a time of major technological
innovations having significant socioeconomic impact" (Smith 1986:18). At that time, there was an
increase in the kinds and numbers of ground stone tools in use, e.g., atlatl weights, axes,
pendants, and pestles (Coe 1964; Griffin 1967). The proliferation of grinding tools may signal a
rise in the importance of plant foods, although the recovery of botanical remains dating to the
Middle Archaic is limited. Compared to the Early Archaic, the scale of land use during the Middle
Archaic decreased, use of local raw materials increased, technology became more expedient,
and residential mobility increased (Amick and Carr 1996:53). These changes are attributed by
some to possible increases in population densities (Sassaman et al. 1988).
The primary indicator of Middle Archaic activities in the Piedmont regions includes Stanly
Stemmed, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford projectile points (Ward and Davis 1999). Each of these
point types is associated with a regional Middle Archaic phase. Besides morphological changes
in projectile point types over time, additions to and changes in the artifact inventory of the Middle
Archaic period are also evident. For instance, the finely crafted unifacial tools that were part of
Early Archaic assemblages were supplanted by informal flake tools (Coe 1964). Simplification is
seen as the major trend in lithic technology during this time, with tools being produced on more
of an ad hoc basis, with a concomitant decrease in quality (Blanton and Sassaman 1989). This
form of lithic technology is thought to reflect a subsistence regime based upon foraging and high
residential mobility. Most Middle Archaic sites in North Carolina appear to represent temporary
encampments and occur without any noticeable preference for particular environmental or
topographic locales (Ward and Davis 1999:63).
Late Archaic (3000-1000 B.C.)
By the beginning of the Late Archaic, climatic regimes across the Southeast had become
essentially modern, signifying the onset of the Late Holocene. Several substantial innovations
occurred during the Late Archaic and promoted vast changes in the daily life of southeastern
Indians. Archaeologically, these changes are manifest as four noticeable trends: the appearance
of several cultivated plant species; the manufacture of stone and fired clay containers; the
accumulation of large, thick midden deposits; and an increase in evidence for long distance trade
(Steponaitis 1986:373). Of these trends, however, only the presence of stone (steatite or
soapstone) vessels has been recorded for Late Archaic deposits in the North Carolina Piedmont
(Ward 1983).
In general, Late Archaic components are much more prevalent throughout the Southeast than are
earlier Archaic and Paleoindian components. Sites dating to the Late Archaic are found in a wide
assortment of ecological settings, and significant occupations of floodplains first occurred during
3.5

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
this time. Entrenched mobility can be used to describe Late Archaic settlement and subsistence
patterning, whereby a series of sites are systematically reoccupied (Graham and Roberts 1986).
It can be viewed as a response to decreased mobility in areas with high population densities and
may be an outgrowth of the increasing specialization of Middle Archaic groups (Amick and Carr
1996). The Late Archaic experienced a move from highly expedient tool making to an increased
degree of curation and logistical procurement of raw materials.
For the inland river valleys, the general settlement model envisions a dry season base camp,
articulating with a variety of task -specific sites associated with subsistence and raw material
resource procurement. The semi -permanent base camps were situated strategically in areas that
provided easy access to both aquatic and floodplain plant and animal species, while smaller short-
term sites were dispersed throughout the river valley and interriverine uplands (Smith 1986:31).
A generalized hunting -gathering and fishing subsistence strategy was employed, although a few
plants such as gourd, squash, sunflower, and chenopod were cultivated in some areas of the
Southeast (Steponaitis 1986:373).
Savannah River points are the main typological marker of the Late Archaic (Ward and Davis
1999:64). Artifacts common during this period included ground stone axes, celts, adzes, pestles,
atlatl weights, and beads; lithic projectile points, cruciform drills, scrapers, and knives; and
grinding slabs and fire -cracked rock. Small containers or bowls carved from soapstone (steatite)
were widely distributed throughout much of the interior Southeast during this time (Sassaman
1993). In addition, artifacts made of exotic materials such as copper or whelk/conch shell are
found in sites at great distances from their source(s) of origin, implying widespread exchange
networks.
Woodland Period (1000 B.C.—A.D. 1000)
With trends toward increased population and greater settlement stability established during the
Late Archaic, the emergence of small river valley "villages" has been noted throughout the
Southeast during the Woodland period (Smith 1986; Steponaitis 1986). Also occurring at this time
was a stronger commitment toward horticulture, although hunting, fishing, and gathering remained
the primary means of subsistence. Maize may have been first cultivated in areas of the Southeast
sometime between A.D. 200 and 400, but its use in the Piedmont was somewhat limited until
around A.D. 1000, although even then "maize agriculture was not particularly important" (Coe
1964:51; Ward 1983:73; Scarry 1993).
Early and Middle Woodland (1000 B.C. — A.D. 1000)
Excavations at Woodland period sites in the nearby Yadkin River drainage have provided much
of the framework for understanding Early to Middle Woodland chronology in the project vicinity
(Coe 1964; Claggett and Cable 1982; Ward and Davis 1999, Woodall 1990). Excavations at the
3.6

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Doerschuk site revealed two ceramic series: Badin and Yadkin (Coe 1964). Although originally
thought to be sequential (Badin predating Yadkin), later research suggests that there is not a
clear-cut developmental relationship between the two series (Webb and Leigh 1995:29). It is
possible that the two types developed somewhat simultaneously in different regions across the
Piedmont (Ward and Davis 1999:86). A survey in the Sandhills region of Marlboro County, South
Carolina recorded numerous sites yielding Yadkin -like ceramics alongside Savannah River
projectile points, suggesting at least some continuity of environmental preferences between the
Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods (Ward 1978).
Badin ceramics are generally well made, sand tempered wares with either plain, cord, or fabric
marked surfaces (Coe 1964:27). The associated Badin Triangular point is large and crudely
made. While it is generally thought that the Badin type predates the Yadkin projectile point type
(Coe 1964:45), it has also been suggested that Badin may simply be a preform for Yadkin
(Sassaman et al. 1990:164). The Yadkin ceramic series includes plain, cord, and fabric marked
as well as check -stamped pottery that was tempered with crushed quartz (Coe 1964:30). The
Yadkin Large Triangular is a finely made, thin point with a concave base; "eared" varieties of the
Yadkin have also been described (Coe 1964:45, 47).
Stemmed points, however, do not disappear entirely with the onset of the Woodland period. The
decreased size in stemmed points evident during the latter part of the Late Archaic appears to
continue into the Woodland, as some small and often crudely chipped stemmed points have been
recovered in Early Woodland contexts with triangular points. A small stemmed point subsumed
under the name Gypsy Stemmed was been identified in the Badin zone at the Doerschuk site
(Oliver 1981:185).
In the North Carolina Piedmont, there appear to be fewer Badin and Yadkin sites compared with
the number of Late Archaic sites, suggesting that the Piedmont was not a preferred location for
settlement during these Early and Middle Woodland periods (although Yadkin sites are more
numerous than Badin sites, particularly in the southern Piedmont and South Carolina; Ward and
Davis 1999:83, 85). Subsistence information from these periods is rare, but it is thought that Badin
and Yadkin peoples continued following a mainly hunting and gathering subsistence pattern, with
possibly a limited use of horticulture. Some Yadkin sites do contain evidence of long-term
occupation, such as at the Town Creek Site (Coe 1995).
Late Woodland to Contact (A.D. 800 — 1740)
The Uwharrie phase is the earliest Late Woodland phase in the North-Central Piedmont
archaeological region and dates from approximately A.D. 800 to A.D. 1000 (Coe 1952; Ward and
Davis 1999:100). The type site is 31 MG14, located at the confluence of the Uwharrie and Yadkin
rivers. It was discovered by Doerschuk but was never excavated (Ward and Davis 1999:100).
Pottery of the Uwharrie phase followed the same tradition of the earlier Badin and Yadkin styles,
3.7

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
with crushed quartz used as a temper. Decoration moved from fabric impressed to net impressed.
Incised lines along the rim were also used, and vessel interiors were often scraped (Coe
1952:308). The main vessel type of the phase is a large conical jar, which, according to Woodall
(1990:82), was ideally suited to food storage.
Uwharrie villages were small, but more sedentary that those of the Middle Woodland (Coe 1952).
Uwharrie sites are more numerous than Early and Middle Woodland sites and show evidence of
intensive occupation. They are often found in floodplain settings and are the foundation of the
riverine, nucleated settlements of the later phases of the Piedmont Village Tradition (Woodall
1990:83, 91). Although subsistence still relied on hunting and gathering, horticulture became more
important through time. Uwharrie sites often contain storage pits that were used for the storage
of surplus crops (Coe 1952; Woodall 1990). Flexed burials in oval pits are typical of the phase
(Ward and Davis 1999:101).
The Uwharrie phase is generally considered ancestral to the ceramics from the subsequent Dan
River and Saratown phases (Ward and Davis 1999:100-118). Although there are distinctive
ceramic attributes for each of these later Woodland phase ceramic series, there are no explicitly
stated temporal or spatial boundaries for these phases. The ceramics from these subsequent
phases exhibit a decrease in the amount of crushed quartz temper and a corresponding increase
in the use of finer sand temper. Similarly, fabric or cord impressed surface treatments decline in
popularity and net impression, stamping or burnishing become more prevalent.
One of the better-known Late Woodland sites along the Yadkin River is the Donnaha Site
(31YD9). Excavations at Donnaha, the Hardy Site, and the McPherson Site by WFU in the 1980s
and 1990s revealed a settlement pattern of larger settlements spaced at 6 to 12 kilometers apart
from one another with smaller hamlets between them (Woodall 1990). Similar settlement patterns
are seen along the Dan, Haw, and Eno River drainages (north and east of the project area;
Simpkins and Petherick 1985).
Occurring after the Uwharrie phase is the Dan River phase (A.D.1000-1450), known from
excavated sites including the Powerplant Site, William Klutz Site, and Lower Saratown (Ward and
Davis 1993). During the early portion of this phase, settlements consisted of scattered households
with associated pit features and burials. Substantially larger villages appear at the latter end of
the phase. Subsistence remains indicate a mixed economy of hunting, gathering, and agriculture.
The Dan River phase is followed by the Saratown phase, known from components at the
Powerplant, William Klutz, and Lower Saratown sites, as well as excavation from Early Upper
Saratown and Upper Saratown (Wilson 1983; Ward and Davis 1993). In contrast to the more
numerous small hamlets of the Dan River phase, early Saratown phase sites are fewer in number
but larger in size. These include palisaded villages that have been found on the banks of the Dan
River near the mouths of the major tributaries. Numerous features including storage pits, earth
ovens, shallow basins, and hearths are all found in these villages. A mixed hunting, gathering,
3.8

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
and agricultural subsistence economy is in evidence during the Saratown phase, with an apparent
increase in the importance of agricultural production.
In contrast to the Dan River Saratown developments, significant cultural changes took place
during the period in the Yadkin -Pee Dee drainage. In the Southern Piedmont, a new culture
developed that is known archaeologically as Pee Dee. This new tradition was a variant of the
Mississippian maize -based agricultural economy that exhibited a complex social organization and
highly developed ceremonialism (Coe 1952; Ferguson 1971).
The Pee Dee lived in stratified societies with warrior, priest, and chiefly classes that organized
and controlled the lives of the masses. Elaborate temple mounds were built that served as
ceremonial centers where mortuary rituals were practiced. The most notable such site is at Town
Creek, which is located on a bluff overlooking the confluence of Town Creek and Little River in
Montgomery County. Town Creek included a platform mound and temple, living quarters for
priests, and mortuary areas. Pee Dee culture lasted until about A.D. 1600 (Oliver 1992). By the
latter part of the seventeenth century, European introduced diseases such as influenza, smallpox,
and measles ravaged the aboriginal populations of North Carolina (Dobyns 1983). Settlements
became less centralized, and tribes either dissolved or merged as settlers moved further into the
Piedmont. By the early 1700s, much of the area had been abandoned by the native tribes.
Historic Period
European exploration of the Piedmont of North Carolina began in the mid -sixteenth century. A
Spanish exploration party led by Hernando de Soto traveled through the state in 1539, followed
by Juan Pardo in 1566 and 1567 European trading parties began traversing the Piedmont during
the seventeenth century, evidence of which can be found in archaeological sites of the Saratown
phase in the Dan River valley. John Lederer, who was commissioned to explore west of the
Virginia colonies by Governor Berkeley, traveled into the North Carolina Piedmont in 1670. During
his explorations, he visited various native villages along the Dan, Eno, and Haw rivers, as well as
the Sara along the Yadkin. Siouan -speaking Tutelo and Saponi Indians occupied the region when
the first settlers arrived (Davis and Ward 1991:40). These Siouan groups largely abandoned the
area by 1710, moving to join with the Catawba and settling near Fort Christanna on the Meherrin
River in Virginia (Merrell 1987:26). These Siouan -speaking groups briefly returned to occupy the
upper Yadkin area of the Piedmont in 1728 but had returned to Virginia or further north by 1732
(Merrell 1987:26).
Davidson County was formed from portions of Rowan County in 1822 and was named for
Revolutionary War general William Lee Davidson (North Carolina State Library 2004). Early
settlers to the region were Scots -Irish and Germans, who settled along the Yadkin River (Howell
2000). Throughout the Historic Period, subsistence farming dominated Piedmont lifeways.
Settlers attempted to grow all the crops they were familiar with, including indigenous crops such
3.9

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
as corn, beans, peas, and tobacco. A lack of reliable transportation limited access to markets,
thus inhibiting statewide communication and further entrenching farm life. Lacking the benefits of
modern land management practices, eighteenth and nineteenth century farming practices
contributed greatly to soil erosion and nutrient depletion in the Piedmont (Trimble 1974; Powell
1989:249).
While farming remained the primary livelihood in the Piedmont during the late eighteenth century,
a few other occupations existed that supported farmstead operations. Such specialists included
blacksmiths, tanners, coopers, weavers, and wagon makers. Additional services were supplied
by gristmill operations that sprang up throughout the region powered by numerous shallow
streams. The Scottish -Irish and Germans were particularly skilled at building and operating
gristmills, having imported this technology from their homelands (Powell 1989:132).
Davidson County was one center of activity for the ill-fated Regulator movement of the 1770s,
during which backcountry farmers took up arms to protest the levying of burdensome taxes but
remained relatively quiescent during the American Revolution. The town of Lexington was named
in honor of the famous clash in Massachusetts that signaled the onset of the war. It had a
population of 83 by the time of the first United States Census in 1790 (Sellon 1980).
Between the American Revolution and the Civil War, the biggest political change for the area
came in 1822, when Davidson, previously part of Rowan County, was established with its own
county government. Although rural farm life in the Piedmont changed little over the first half of the
nineteenth century, the discovery of gold in the Uwharrie Mountains figured prominently in the
economy of the region. In 1825, "Barringer's Lode" was discovered in what is now Stanly County,
and a gold rush began. Prominent among the mines opened in Davidson County was the Silver
Hill Mine discovered around 1838 and located 10 miles southeast of Lexington (Nitze and Hanna
1896:61). Other mines, including Emmons, Cid, Silver Valley, and Conrad Hill, were established
during the nineteenth century and continued in operation until the 1890s (Nitze and Hanna
1896:60-74).
During the early years of the Civil War, Piedmont counties were centers of shelter for refugees
fleeing the military strife in the Coastal Plain (Powell 1989:358). During March and April 1865,
Union General William Sherman marched through North Carolina, taking city after city and
heading for Raleigh. After General Lee surrendered at Appomattox on 11 April 1865,
representatives of the North Carolina government met with General Sherman to ask that Raleigh
be spared the destruction that had accompanied the fall of Atlanta, Columbia and other Southern
cities. Two days later, on April 13, Sherman had established his headquarters in Raleigh. The
Davidson County Courthouse was built in 1858; however, a fire in 1866 attributed to Union troops
damaged the building and destroyed many records.
3.10

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
The era of Reconstruction brought many changes to the North Carolina Piedmont. Chief among
them was the removal of the slavery system. Because the available labor force for working the
farms was reduced, large tracts of land were taken out of production. Consequently, much of this
fallow land was sold by larger planters, which resulted in an increased number of small farms. A
related change in rural lifeways during the late nineteenth century was the rise of tenant farming
(Powell 1989:419). The county's economy gradually moved from agriculture to industrial, primarily
textile and furniture manufacturing.
Railroads reached the project vicinity in 1891, and in subsequent decades the first major textile
mills were constructed. This period saw the beginnings of small industry and commercial business
throughout the region (Powell 1989:404-421). Textile mills began to appear after the war and by
1910 the Wennonah Cotton Mill of Lexington and the Amazon Cotton Mill of Thomasville were
both in operation (Sellon 1980). During these same years, furniture manufactories also sprang up
in both towns. Flour and grist mills were scattered along Piedmont waterways to provide farmers
with a means of grinding their own grain; some farmers also built mills to supplement their farming
income. Sawmills and timbering were prevalent in Davidson County throughout the twentieth
century.
The proliferation of the automobile in the early twentieth century caused the state to take over the
maintenance and construction of roads. In 1921, the establishment of the "Good Roads System"
led to the hard paving of many of the roads in the state. As other roads were built or improved,
transportation became easier.
Historical Maps
Topographic maps, aerial photography, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil
survey maps, and historical maps were examined for information on natural or cultural factors that
might have affected site locations or preservation, and to determine if structures were located on
the parcel. In general, with the exception of the topographic quadrangle maps, the historical maps
available were not at a scale sufficient to show possible structure locations with any accuracy or
detail. Historical aerial photography was also consulted to determine changes in land use over
time as well as to look for former structure locations.
No structures are depicted within the project area on the c. 1890 Davidson County Map, 1910
Calvin Miller Map, or c. 1919 Rural Delivery Routes Map. The 1915 Davidson County Soils map
and 1969 Welcome, NC USGS topographic map (1:24,000) show no structures within the
conservation easement or survey area (Figure 3.1).
Aerial imagery from 1955 and 1965 shows a structure just outside of the project area to the north
of Reedy Creek. The structure is gone by 1984. Visual inspection of this area revealed no signs
of structural remains or historic period artifacts. Aerial imagery indicates that the southern portion
3.11

�f
Cs#
Af
*Af _-
j
�'`` c l #!
f.
%,jo
Tl 1 _� �... ......./
1969 Welcome, NC 1:24,000 USGS Topographic Map
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Historical Maps
NO.
Chkj
MM
in ierracon
Rolling Meadows
Proect No:
Project
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, Nc 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
3'1
Date.
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
of the conservation easement (currently fallow field) was wooded as late as 1993 (Figure 3.2,
top). By 1998, this area was clear-cut and ditched for agricultural use. The 2002 aerial photograph
shows the project area under cultivation (Figure 3.2, bottom).
Archaeological Potential and Expectations
Review of historical maps and aerial imagery suggested that there was low potential for historic
period sites to be present within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Given the project
area's floodplain setting and proximity to water (as well as the presence of several previously
recorded precontact archaeological sites within one mile of the project area), it was expected that
there would be an increased likelihood of encountering precontact sites, particularly along level
portions of the upland landforms adjacent to the somewhat narrow floodplain.
3.12

1993 Aerial Photograph
2002 Aerial Photograph
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Aerial Photographs
NO.
Chkd:
MM
inierracon
Rolling Meadows
Project No:
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
3.2
Date.
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
4. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
A records review was conducted on February 25, 2022, by OSA staff on behalf of Terracon. Based
on this research, 15 archaeological sites have been recorded and eight cultural resource surveys
had been conducted within the one mile of the proposed project area; however, none are directly
within the project area (Table 4.1). Almost half of these sites were recorded by Wake Forest
University as revisits of sites recorded by private collectors. Two historic period cemeteries were
also recorded. Most of the sites recorded consisted of unassessed or ineligible surface scatters
of lithic and ceramic materials. Site 31 DV401, first recorded in 1973 and revisited by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for a bridge replacement in 1995, consisted of
a Middle Woodland scatter of ceramic and lithic materials. Subsurface deposits were recorded,
and NCDOT noted the potential for intact deposits.
Table 4.1: Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Project Area
Site
Description
NRHP Status
Comment
31 DV397
Precontact: Archaic/Woodland surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV398
Precontact: Archaic/Woodland surface scatter
Historic Period: surface artifact scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV401
Precontact: Middle Woodland
Unassessed
NCDOT considered
potentially eligible
31 DV403
Precontact: Woodland surface scatter
Unassessed
31 DV439
Precontact: Late Archaic/Woodland surface
scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV440
Historic Period Cemetery
Unassessed
31 DV441
Precontact: lithic/ceramic surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV442
Precontact: lithic surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV444
Precontact: Archaic/Woodland surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV446
Precontact: Archaic/Woodland surface scatter
Unassessed
private collector
31 DV486
Precontact: Middle Archaic surface scatter
Not Eligible
31 DV487
Precontact: Lithic scatter
Not Eligible
31 DV700
Historic Period Cemetery
Unassessed
31 DV720
Precontact: Woodland
Historic Period: 191" —201" C. farmstead and
artifact scatter
Not Eligible
Mid -South Pipeline
31 DV721
Precontact: Lithic scatter
Historic Period: artifact scatter
Not Eligible
Mid -South Pipeline
Three surveys were conducted by NCDOT in the vicinity. In 1993, NCDOT conducted a study for
the replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR 1450 over Huffmans Creek (Jurgelski and Glover 1993).
4.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Two sites (31 DV486 and 31 DV487) were recorded. An archaeological survey of Bridge No. 50 on
SR 1493 conducted by NCDOT in 1993 recorded no new archaeological sites (Glover 1993). In
1995, NCDOT conducted a study for the replacement of Bridge No. 56 on NC 150 over Reedy
Creek (Glover 1995). One site, 31 DV401, was recorded.
Five additional archaeological investigations were undertaken for various portions of the Williams
Gas Pipeline (Jones and Bland 2010; Jones 2011a; Jones 2011b). In 2012, Phase II testing was
conducted at site 31 DV720 in advance of a proposed pipeline (Jones 2012). The site was
determined Not Eligible for the NRHP.
4.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The main goal of the investigation was to identify and assess the significance of cultural resources
that might occur within the proposed project area. Work towards this goal took place in two stages:
background research and field investigations.
Background Research
The goal of the background research was to acquire a working familiarity with the natural and
cultural developments of the area. Background research at the OSA was conducted by OSA staff
on behalf of Terracon and included a search of the North Carolina Archaeological Site Files, as
well as an examination of reports of previous investigations of cultural resources in the vicinity of
the project area.
Field Methodology
Field survey methods employed by Terracon during the investigation included systematic shovel
testing combined with pedestrian inspection (visual survey) of the project area. Areas of clear
visibility were systematically inspected for artifacts and other surface signs of precontact or
historic period cultural activity. Shovel testing was conducted at 25-meter intervals within areas
of proposed ground disturbance. As most of the project area was located adjacent to Reedy Creek
and its tributaries, a representative sample of shovel tests were augered with a four -inch bucket
auger to a depth of at least one meter below surface to investigate the potential for buried soil
horizons suitable for cultural occupation.
Shovel tests excavated measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were dug to one
meter in depth or sterile subsoil. Excavated sediments were screened through 6.35-millimeter
(0.25-inch) hardwire mesh. Pertinent field data, including locations, soil color and texture, notes
on the stratigraphic relationships of artifacts, environmental setting, topography, etc. were
recorded for shovel test locations. Shovel test locations were marked on a field map of the
archaeological study area and were generally assigned identifying Transect and Shovel Test
numbers (i.e., ST1-2 would be the second shovel test along the first transect).
Laboratory Methodology
Artifacts collected during field investigations were transported to the Terracon laboratory in
Raleigh, North Carolina. During fieldwork, a catalog system was employed to ensure that
provenience data were recorded for each recovered artifact. In the laboratory, artifacts were
5.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
washed with a soft bristle brush and allowed to air dry. Collected artifacts were limited to
precontact lithic debitage.
During the analysis, lithic artifacts were counted, identified as to material type, and examined
under magnification (10-60x) as needed. To determine their relative position on the reduction
continuum, flakes were measured along their long axis and were further categorized on the basis
of observable surface cortex. Flake size categories used were 0-10 mm, 10-20 mm, 20-30 mm,
30-40 mm, etc. Primary flakes (PF) exhibit cortex over 100% of their outer surface, while
secondary flakes (SF) possess cortex over less than 100% of their outer surface. Flakes that
lacked cortex on the outer surface were classified as tertiary flakes (TF). Shatter are defined as
angular fragments of stone that have been clearly modified but lack a clear bulb of percussion.
Curation
The results of laboratory analysis were tabulated in the site descriptions. Field documents
including notes, forms, and maps as well as the artifacts recovered during the investigation were
labeled and packed for permanent curation according to the OSA Archaeological Curation
Standards and Guidelines. Presently, project materials are being temporarily housed at the
Terracon laboratory in Raleigh, North Carolina. Following project completion, artifacts and project
documents will be transported to the OSA curatorial facility for permanent storage.
Archaeological Site Descriptions
Site descriptions in this report contain a variety of information generally based on fields included
on North Carolina Archaeological Site Forms, much of it presented in a succinct bullet format.
Categories in the bullet format include: Site size, topography, elevation, environmental setting,
soil type, nearest water, surface visibility, field procedures, cultural affiliation, site function, and
site integrity. Each site description also includes a detailed description of the work conducted at
the site and the types of cultural materials encountered. Also given are a listing of the artifacts
recorded at the site separated by component and context, the results of historic research (when
applicable), and recommendations for the site (no further work, avoidance, testing, etc.).
Archaeological Site Definitions and Evaluations
Archaeological sites are defined as discrete and potentially interpretable loci of cultural material
(Plog et al. 1978). For the present study, an archaeological site is defined as a location where at
least one artifact or cultural feature greater than 50 years old has been identified.
5.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
NRHP Eligibility Criteria
In order for a site, building, etc. to be considered a significant historic property, it must meet one
or more of four specific criteria established in 36 CFR Part 60 (National Register of Historic
Places) and 36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties). The evaluation of a precontact
or historic period archaeological site for inclusion on the NRHP rests largely on its research
potential, that is, its ability to contribute important information through preservation and/or
additional study (Criterion D).
The NRHP criteria for evaluation are stated as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association, and;
Criterion A: Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B: Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in
our past;
Criterion C: Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period,
or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess
high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; and
Criterion D: Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, important
information in prehistory or history.
Archaeoloaical Sites and the NRHP
While many archaeological sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D,
this criterion is somewhat vague. In order to clarify the issue of site importance, the following
attribute evaluations add a measure of specificity that can be used in assessing site significance
and NRHP eligibility:
5.3

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
• Site Integrity— Does the site contain intact cultural deposits or is it disturbed?;
• Preservation — Does the site contain material suited to in-depth analysis and/or
absolute dating such as preserved features, botanical and/or faunal remains, or
human skeletal remains?;
• Uniqueness— Is the information contained in the site redundant in comparison
to that available from similar sites, or do the remains provide a unique or insightful
perspective on research concerns of regional importance?;
• Relevance to Current and Future Research — Would additional work at this site
contribute to our knowledge of the past? Would preservation of the site protect
valuable information for future studies? While this category is partly a summary of
the above considerations, it also recognizes that a site may provide valuable
information regardless of its integrity, preservation, or uniqueness.
5.4

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
6. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
Field investigations were conducted from February 28 to March 3, 2022 by Terri Russ (Field
Director and Principal Investigator), Becky Sponseller (Crew Chief), and Kristin Doshier. As a
result of the investigation, a total of 176 shovel tests were excavated and one new archaeological
site (31 DV769) was recorded (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). General overview photographs of the project
area are shown on Figures 6.3 to 6.6.
Subsurface investigations focused on the areas of proposed ground disturbance related to the
proposed wetland restoration (see Appendix A for proposed wetland restoration plan). Shovel
testing was conducted at 25-meter intervals within these areas of proposed ground disturbance.
A representative sample of shovel tests were augered to investigate the potential for buried soils
horizons suitable for cultural occupation. In addition, areas of the conservation easement
exhibiting good surface visibility (outside of the proposed disturbance area) were systematically
visually inspected for artifacts and surface evidence of cultural activity.
Shovel testing primarily focused on the areas to the south of Reedy Creek within the proposed
wetland restoration area. The portions of this area closest to the drainage were mapped by the
NRCS as Chewacla loam (floodplains); however, a larger portion of this low-lying, level area was
apparently mis-mapped by the NRCS as Pacolet sandy loam (15-25% slopes; see Figure 2.1).
Although this area was currently fallow, aerial photographs indicate past agricultural use. The
fields were wooded as late as 1993 (see Figure 3.2, top); however, by 1998, this area was clear-
cut and ditched for agricultural use (Figure 3.2, bottom for view of project area under cultivation
in 2002).
Shovel testing revealed a variety of soils. For example, Shovel Test (ST)7-9 (located in the
southern portion of the project area near a drainage ditch) consisted of 20 centimeters of brown
sandy loam over 5 centimeters of brown, yellowish brown, and reddish brown coarse sandy loam.
A yellowish brown and strong brown silty loam was encountered from 25 to 40 centimeters below
surface, followed by 40 centimeters of a brown coarse sand. Pale gray very coarse sand was
encountered from 80 to 95 centimeters over a gray clay (excavated 95 to 100 centimeters below
surface).
Other shovel tests consisted of 20 to 30 centimeters of brown or dark brown sandy clay loam over
mottled yellowish brown and gray clay with redox. Most of the shovel tests in this area
encountered the water table between 25 and 50 centimeters below surface. Representative
shovel test profiles can be seen on Figure 6.7.
6.1

Legend
Source: Terracon (Field Data) 2022;
Conservation Easement Boundary O Negative Shovel Test APE provided by Client.
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for
Site Boundary x No Dig informational purposes only and was not prepared for,
and is not suitable for, legal or engineering purposes.
+ Surface Find
Drwn: MM
Shovel Test Locations
FIGURE
rerracon
NO.
Chkd:
TR
■
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
g 1
6.1
Project "
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

r\
Lim
011
( _ .i
GZr
GIL
AN
,Copy`ght:© 2013-Nation al Geographic Sociei-cubed
Legend
FE-IConservation Easement Boundary Kilometers
EZI0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Site Boundary
Drwn: MM
Archaeological Site Location
FIGURE
rerracon
Chkd:
TR
.
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Rolling Meadows
Mitigation Project
Davisdson County, North Carolina
6.2
Project No.:
70227103
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Northern Portion of Conservation Easement, Facing North
Portion of Conservation Easement along North Side of Reedy Creek, Facing West
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Project Area Photographs
Rolling Meadows
N O.
Ohkd:
MMMerracon
Project No:70227103
6.3
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 2760
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 202211
Phone: [phone] Fax: (919) 873_9":

Drainage in Northern Portion of Conservation Easement, Facing North
Reedy Creek, Facing West
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Werracon
Project Area Photographs
Rolling Meadows
NO.
Chkd:
MM
Project No:70227103
6.4
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27605
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 202211
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]"

Southern Portion of Conservation Easement, Facing West
Drainage Ditch in Southern Portion of Conservation Easement, Facing East
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
Project Area Photographs
NO.
Chkd:
MM
� �erracon
Rolling Meadows
Project No:
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
6.5
Date.
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Reedy Creek, Facing West
Reedy Creek, Facing East
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
� ������0�
Rolling Meadows Project Area Photographs
NO.
Chkd:
MM
Project No:
6.6
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

\ - 1 Y ,,� •N� 1 tY�� ' �,�,�Lr -�'� 4'yQ i"'""°�
`F4�F} s�� ,rri`'L,�G�I�R�,vp � v'0 ,� t '✓ +ya��
.�Qr+.s' - .. � r ���gy��
0 #' � Y x,,�� "./°G-.�.
; ..
�d.4i!y
kV.
I
l _
r
ST1-6
ST4-3
Bank
Profile of Reedy Creek
I
;
r !
ST7-13
ST11-2
Drwn: FIGURE
TR
Chkd:
MM
�, %rracon
Rolling Meadows Representative Shovel Test Photographs
No.
Project No:
70227103
Davidson County, North Carolina
6'7
Date.
March 2022
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27605
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
No artifacts or cultural materials were recovered as a result of the shovel testing; however, surface
inspection of the conservation easement recorded a precontact scatter of lithic and ceramic
artifacts, discussed below.
31 DV769
UTM : 17S 562848.43 m E 3974637.35 m N
Site Size: 3,955m2
Elevation: 720 feet amsl
Environmental Setting: Agricultural Field
Soils: ChA, Chewacla Loam, frequently flooded, 0-2% slopes
Nearest Water: 25 meters south, Reedy Creek
Surface Visibility: 75-100%
Field Procedures: Pedestrian Survey and Shovel Testing (n=1)
Cultural Affiliation: Precontact—Woodland; Lithic (Unknown Subperiod)
Site Function: Precontact—Limited Activity
Site Integrity: Poor
Recommendations: Not Eligible; No Further Work
Site Description: Surface inspection of a recently tilled and planted agricultural field north of Reedy
Creek revealed a scatter of lithic materials along the boundary and outside of the conservation
easement; Figures 6.8-6.10. The majority of the site appeared to be outside of the conservation
easement boundary (approximately 705 m2 of the 3,955 m2 site was located within the project
boundaries).
Given the excellent surface visibility, field methodology consisted of systematic visual inspection
transects spaced at 5-meter intervals, thus affording nearly 100 percent coverage of the area.
Each artifact or cluster of artifacts (within an approximately 1-meter radius) was marked in the
field with a pin flag. The locations of these artifacts (designated Surface Find [SF]1, SF2, etc.)
were recorded with a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Only those artifacts located
within the project area boundaries were collected; however, the artifacts outside of the project
boundary were counted, logged, and photographed (see Appendix B). Table 6.1 shows the
artifacts recorded as a result of the site investigation. The majority of artifacts from the site (n=70;
92.1 %) consisted of metavolcanic lithic debitage. Other artifacts recorded included quartz shatter
and flakes and one rhyolite biface fragment. Two ceramic sherds were also noted outside of the
project area. Both were sand tempered and were eroded (likely fabric impressed).
6.2

Legend
Source: Terracon (Field Data) 2022;
Conservation Easement Boundary O Negative Shovel Test APE provided by Client.
Disclaimer. The information depicted on this figure is
= Site Boundary X No Dig for informational purposes only and was not
prepared for, and is not suitable for, legal or
Tree Line + Surface Find engineering purposes.
Drwn: MM
WrerraconRolling
Archaeological Site Plan
FIGURE
Chkd:
TR
Meadows
Mitigation Project
6.8
Project No.:
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27604
Davisdson County, North Carolina
Date:
March 2022
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
%rracon
Rolling Meadows Archaeological Site Photographs
No.
chkd
MM
Project No:
6'9
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
%rracon
Rolling Meadows Archaeological Site Photographs
No.
chkd
MM
Project No:
6.10
70227103
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Table 6.1: Site 31 DV769 Artifacts
Within Project Area
Prov
AType rtifact
Description*
N=
SF 1
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
4
SF14
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
SF15
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF16
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF16
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF17
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF18
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
Biface frag:
MV
1
Total Within Project Area
17
Outside of Project Area
Prov
AType rtifact
Description*
N=
SF2
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
7
SF3
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF4
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF5
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF6
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF7
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF8
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF9
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF10
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
Debitage:
Qtz
1
SF11
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF12
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF13
Ceramic
Fabric impressed; sand tempered
1
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
SF19
Ceramic
Fabric impressed; sand tempered
1
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
Debitage:
Qtz
1
SF20
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
SF21
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
1
SF22
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
2
SF23
Lithic
Debitage:
MV
3
6.3

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Outside of Project Area
Prov
AType rtifact
Description*
N=
SF24
Lithic
Debitage: MV
1
Shatter: Qtz
1
SF25
Lithic
Debitage: MV
1
SF26
Lithic
Debitage: MV
2
SF27
Lithic
Debitage: MV
3
SF28
Lithic
Debitage: MV
4
SF29
Lithic
Debitage: MV
3
SF30
Lithic
Debitage: MV
2
SF31
Lithic
Debitage: MV
2
SF32
Lithic
Debitage: MV
1
Total Outside of Project Area
59
Grand 76
Total
HMV: Metavolcanic, Qtz: Quartz
One shovel test was excavated within the conservation easement boundaries (near the southern
portion of the site). Soils in this shovel test consisted of 30 centimeters of yellowish brown sandy
clay loam over mottled brownish yellow, red, and white sandy clay subsoil. Although the NRCS
mapped this area as Chewacla loam, the site is located along an elevated sloping ridge
overlooking Reedy Creek and is more likely characterized as Wedowee sandy loam (2-8%
slopes).
Summary and Recommendations: This site consists of a surface scatter of primarily metavolcanic
lithic artifacts. Temporally diagnostic materials were limited to two diminutive ceramic sherds
(recorded outside of the project area), suggesting a Woodland period of occupation. The field
exhibited erosion and has been used for agriculture for decades; shovel testing did not indicate
the presence of intact sub -plow zone soils.
Given the nearly 100 percent coverage of the area, it was apparent that cultural materials
appeared to be scattered across the site's boundaries rather than continuously distributed, and in
spite of the large size of the site, the density of the deposits was generally low. No cultural features
or significant artifact concentrations were recorded, and the site does not appear to be particularly
unique or contain materials suited to in-depth analysis. Additional work at this site is unlikely to
contribute to our knowledge of the past. This site is recommended Not Eligible for the NRHP
under Criteria A—D; no additional archaeological work is recommended for this location.

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
7. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This archaeological investigation for the Rolling Meadows wetland mitigation and restoration
project located along Reedy Creek in Davidson County, North Carolina was conducted by
Terracon of Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of Water & Land Solutions. The project site
consists of an approximately 51.8-acre proposed mitigation area and conservation easement
encompassing a portion of Reedy Creek and associated tributaries. Although the surrounding
conservation easement encompasses an approximately 51.8-acre area, the proposed areas of
subsurface disturbance are limited to the drainageways and adjacent floodplain proposed for
stream restoration and wetland re-establishment (see Appendix A for proposed wetland
restoration plan).
Fieldwork was designed to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA and guidelines established by
the Office of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States and in consultation with the OSA
(ER 22-0175). Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, background research was conducted, which
included a search of archaeological site files by OSA staff on behalf of Terracon. Field methods
used during the investigation included pedestrian inspection and shovel testing. Field
investigations took approximately 11.25 person days to complete and were conducted from
February 28 to March 3, 2022 by Terri Russ, Becky Sponseller, and Kristin Doshier.
As a result of the investigation, 176 shovel tests were excavated and one new archaeological site
(31 DV769) was recorded (Table 7.1). The archaeological site is recommended Not Eligible for
the NRHP; it is recommended that the proposed project be allowed to proceed without concern
for impacts to significant cultural resources. Should the project area be expanded, additional
coordination with SHPO should occur to ensure that these actions do not adversely affect
potentially significant archaeological resources.
Table 7.1: Summary of Site Data
Site Cultural Affiliation Site Type Recommendations
31 DV769 Precontact: Lithic; Woodland Limited Activity Not Eligible; NFW*
* NFW.- No Further Work
7.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, J.M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American
Antiquity 55(2):348-354.
Amick, D.S. and P.J. Carr
1996 Changing Strategies of Lithic Technological Organization. In Kenneth E.
Sassaman and David G. Anderson (eds) Archaeology of the Mid -Holocene
Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. pp. 41-56.
Anderson, D. G.
1990 A North American Paleoindian Projectile Point Database. Current Research in
the Pleistocene 7:67-69.
1995 Paleoindian Interaction Networks in the Eastern Woodlands. In M. Nassaney and
K. Sassaman (eds) Native American Interaction: MultiscalarAnalyses and
Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands. The University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville. pp. 3-26.
Anderson, D.G. and G. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast: A Case Study for the Savannah River
Valley. American Antiquity 53:262-286.
Anderson, D.G. and J. Schuldenrein
1983 Early Archaic Settlement on the Southeastern Atlantic Slope: A View from
Rucker's Bottom Site, Elbert County, Georgia. North American Archaeologist
4(3):177-210.
Anderson, D.G., R.J. Ledbetter, and L. O'Steen
1990 Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia. Laboratory of Archaeology Services
Report No. 28, University of Georgia, Athens.
Blanton, D. and K.E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period in South Carolina. In Glen T.
Hanson and Albert C. Goodyear II I (eds) The Archaeology of South Carolina:
Papers in Honor of Dr. Robert L. Stephenson. South Carolina Institute of
Archeology and Anthropology, Anthropological Studies, No. 7. University of
South Carolina Press, Columbia. pp. 53-72.
R.1

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Cable, J.S.
1992 Organizational Variability in Piedmont Hunter -Gatherer Lithic Assemblages. In
Stephen R. Claggett and John S. Cable (assemblers) The Haw River Sites:
Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina
Piedmont. Report 2386. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, Mississippi. pp.
637-88.
Carbone, V.A.
1983 Late Quaternary Environments in Florida and the Southeast. Florida
Anthropologist36 (1-2): 3-17.
Claggett, S.R. and J.S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the
North Carolina Piedmont. Report No. 2386, Commonwealth Associates, Jackson,
Michigan. Ms. On file, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Coe, J.L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of American
Philosophical Society, 54. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
1995 Town Creek Indian Mound: A Native Legacy. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Daniel, Jr., I.R.
1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Davis, R.P.S. and T. Ward
1991 The Evolution of Siouan Communities in Piedmont North Carolina. Southeastern
Archaeology, No. 1:40-53.
Delcourt, P.A., and H.R. Delcourt
1985 Quaternary Palynology and Vegetational History of the Southeastern United
States. In V.M. Bryant and R.G. Holloway (eds) Pollen Records of Late -
Quaternary North American Sediments. American Association of Stratigraphic
Palynologists Foundation, College Station, Texas. pp. 1-37.
1987 Long Term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late
Quaternary Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies No. 63,
Springer Verlag, New York.
R.2

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Dillehay, T.D.
1997 Monte Verde, A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The
Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C.
Dobyns, H.
1983 Their Number Become Thinned. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Dunbar, J.S. and B.I. Waller
1983 A Distribution Analysis of the Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites in Florida: A
Geographic Approach. Florida Anthropologist 36(1-2):18-30.
Ferguson, Leland
1971 South Appalachian Mississippian. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Fiedel, S.J.
1999 Older than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians.
American Antiquity 64(1):95-115.
Glover, Gerold F.
1993 Archaeological Study, Bridge No. 50 on SR 1493, Davidson County, North
Carolina, TIP B-2542. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Ms. on File,
Ms. on File, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
1995 Archaeological Study, Bridge No. 56 on NC 150 over Reedy Creek, Davidson
County, North Carolina, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-150(4), TIP No. B-2126. North
Carolina Department of Transportation. Ms. on File, Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
Goodyear, A.C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United
States. American Antiquity (47):382-395.
Goodyear, A.C., J.H. House, and N.W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens -Anderson: An Archaeological Study of the Inter-Riverine Piedmont.
Anthropological Studies 4. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Columbia.
R.3

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Goodyear, A.C., J. Michie, and T. Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In A. Goodyear and G. Hanson (eds) Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology. Anthropological Studies 9. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. pp. 19-52.
Graham, R.W. and A. Roberts
1986 Residentially Constrained Mobility: A Preliminary Investigation of Variability in
Settlement Organization. Haliksa'i: UNM Contributions to Anthropology 5:105-16.
Griffin, J.B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.
Hamel, P.B.
1992 Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Howell, Ray
2000 Images of America: Davidson County. Davidson County Historical Museum.
Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
Jones, Paul L.
2011 a Addendum I to Phase I Archaeological Investigations for Williams Gas Pipeline—
Transco's Proposed Mid -South Expansion Project. Gastonia, Rowan, and
Davidson Loops in Gaston, Rowan, and Davidson Counties, North Carolina: Pipe
Yards. Florida History, LLC, Tampa, Florida. Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
2011 b Addendum II to Phase I Archaeological Investigations for Williams Gas Pipeline—
Transco's Proposed Mid -South Expansion Project. Gastonia, Rowan, and
Davidson Loops in Gaston, Rowan, and Davidson Counties, North Carolina:
Access Roads. Florida History, LLC, Tampa, Florida. Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
2012 Phase II Archaeological Testing of Site 31 DV720 and Historical Assessment of
Building Complexes DV363 and DV1063 in Support of the Operations and
Maintenance of the Williams Transco Pipeline, Davidson County, North Carolina.
Florida History, LLC, Tampa, Florida. Ms. on File, Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
RA

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Jones, Paul L. and Myles Bland
2010 Phase I Archaeological Investigations for Williams Gas Pipelin e— Transco's
Proposed Mid -South Expansion Project. Gastonia, Rowan, and Davidson Loops
in Gaston, Rowan, and Davidson Counties, North Carolina. Florida History, LLC,
Tampa, Florida. Ms. on File, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
Jurgelski, Bill and Gerold Glover
1993 Archaeological Study, Bridge No. 26 on SR 1450, Davidson County, North
Carolina, TIP B-2541. North Carolina Department of Transportation. Ms. on File,
Ms. on File, Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III
1980 Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
McAvoy, J.M.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No. 8.
Merrell, J. H.
1987 "This Western World". The Evolution of the Piedmont, 1525— 1725. In the Siouan
Project: Seasons I and II , edited by R. dickens Jr., H.T. Ward, and R.P.S. Davis
Jr., Monograph No. 1. Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Morrow, J.E., and T.A. Morrow
1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: A Hemispheric Perspective.
American Antiquity 64(2):215-231.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
1966 National Historic Preservation Act. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part
800. United States of America: Washington D.C.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2021 Davidson County, North Carolina Soil Survey. Tabular Data. Natural Resources
Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/, accessed February 2022.
Nitze, H. C., and G. B. Hanna
1896 Gold Deposits of North Carolina. Bulletin No. 3, The North Carolina Geological
Survey, M.I. & J.C. Stewart, Printers, Winston. Reprinted 1996.
R.5

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
2015 Physiographic Provinces of North Carolina. ESRI interactive story map.
https://deg. nc. gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-
geological-survey/interactive-geologic-maps, accessed March 2022.
2016 Geologic Terranes and Major Geological Elements of North Carolina. ESRI
interactive story map.
https://ncdenr. maps. arcgis. com/apes/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0a7ccd93947
34ff6aa2434d2528ddfl2, accessed March 2022.
North Carolina State Library
2004 North Carolina County Formation.
https://statelibrary. ncdcr. gov/research/genealogy-and-famil v-history/family-
records/nc-county-formation, accessed March 2022.
Oliver, B.L.
1981 The Piedmont Tradition: Refinement of the Savannah River Stemmed Point
Type. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Georgia, Athens.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
O'Steen, L.D.
1983 Early Archaic Settlement Patterns in the Wallace Reservoir: An Inner Piedmont
Perspective. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Georgia, Athens.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell
1995 Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
Perkinson, P.H.
1971 North Carolina Fluted Points
23:3-40.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Points
25:3-60.
Survey Number One. Southern Indian Studies
Survey Number Two. Southern Indian Studies
Plog, Stephen, Fred Plog, and Walter Wait
1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Michael Schiffer (ed) Advances in
Archaeological Method and Theory. Academic Press, New York. pp. 383-412.
R.6

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina through Four Centuries. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell
1994 Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Russo, M.
1992 Chronologies and Cultures of the St. Mary's Region of Northeast Florida and
Southeast Georgia. Florida Anthropologist 45 (2):107-126.
Sassaman, K.E.
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Sassaman, K.E., M. J. Brooks, G.T. Hanson, and D. G. Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley. Savannah
Archaeological Research Papers 1.
Sassaman, K.E., G.T. Hanson, and T. Charles
1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter -Gatherer Range in the
Savannah River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7(2):79-94.
Scarry, C.M. (editor)
1993 Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Schuldenrein, J.
1996 Geoarchaeology and the Mid -Holocene Landscape History of the Greater
Southeast. In Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson (eds) Archaeology
of the Mid -Holocene Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. pp. 3-
27.
Sellon, M. R.
1980 PreliminaryArchaeological and Historical Investigations at Three Alternative
Airport Areas in Davidson County, North Carolina. Ms. on File, Office of State
Archaeology, Raleigh North Carolina.
R.7

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Simpkins, Daniel L. and Gary Petherick
1985 First Phase Investigations of Late Aboriginal Settlement Systems in the Eno,
Haw, and Dan River Drainages, North Carolina. Research Report No. 3,
Research Laboratories of Anthropology, the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Smith, B.D.
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to deSoto
(10,500 B.P. — 500 B.P.). In Fred Wendorf and Angela E. Close (eds) Advances
in World Archaeology, Volume 5. Academic Press, New York. pp. 1-92.
Steponaitis, V.P.
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States. Annual Review of
Anthropology (15):363-404.
Trimble, S.W.
1974 Man -Induced Soil Erosion on the Southern Piedmont. Soil Conservation Society
of America.
United States Department of Agriculture: North Carolina Department of Agriculture
1915 Soil Map, North Carolina, Davidson County, North Carolina. On file, North
Carolina State Archives, Raleigh, North Carolina.
https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/sinpleitem/collection/ncmaps/id/292/rec/18, accessed
March 2022.
United States Geological Survey
1969 Welcome, North Carolina. 1:24,000 Topographic Quadrangle Map. Washington
D.C.
Ward, H. Trawick
1978 The Archaeology of Whites Creek, Marlboro County, South Carolina. Research
Laboratories of Archaeology. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In
M.A. Mathis and J.J. Crow (eds) The Prehistory of North Carolina: An
Archaeological Symposium. North Carolina Division of Archives and History,
Raleigh.
Ward, H.T. and R.P.S. Davis Jr.
1993 Indian Communities on the North Carolina Piedmont A.D. 1000 to 1700.
Research Laboratories of Archaeology Monograph No. 2. The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
R.8

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
Ward, H.T. and R.P.S. Davis Jr. (continued)
1999 Time Before History. The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Watts, W.A., E.C. Grim, and T.C. Hussey
1996 Mid -Forest of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina. In
Kenneth E. Sassaman and David G. Anderson (eds). Archaeology of the Mid -
Holocene Southeast. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. pp. 28-40.
Webb, Paul and D.S. Leigh
1995 Geomorphological and Archaeological Investigations of a Buried Site on the
Yadkin River Floodplain. Southern Indian Studies: 44:1-36.
Wilson, J. H., Jr.
1983 A Study of Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic Indians of the Carolina
and Virginia Piedmont. Structure, Process, and Ecology. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
Woodall, J.N.
1990 Archaeological Investigations in the Yadkin River Valley, 1984-1987. Publication
25. North Carolina Archaeological Council, Raleigh.
R.9

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
APPENDIX A: PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN

s^
Q Proposed Conservation Easement ,. f
Stream Mitigation r q
r It
Stream Restoration 4*
Stream Enhancement I
Existing Utilities •,-
Wetland Mitigation V �� r
Wetland Re-establishment
Parcel Boundary E.
Davidson County Parcels
F' M r
I I I
Reed meek.
--VLower
*� 0JUU
HS01
HS02
Y
i
Reach ID Mitigation Stream (ft) Ratio Credits
Reedy Creek Upper Restoration 589 1:1 589 imrm'
Reedy Creek Upper Enhancement 1 175 1.5:1 117
f
Reedy Creek Lower Restoration 4064 1:1 4064
S100 Restoration 1466 1:1 1466
S101 Restoration 570 1:1 570 i
S300 Restoration 201 1:1 201
7065 7007r
Wetland ID Mitigation Wetland (ac) Ratio Credits *�
HS01 Re-establishment 7.43 1:1 1.43
HS02 Re-establishment 1.22 1:1 1.22
HS03 Re-establishment 0.61 1:1 0.61
9.26 9.26
0 300 600
1 inch = 600 feet
;ea_c_eak� {` ,
;UpperT/L w rM i
1,200 \
� Feet ^\1
N
Figure
Rolling Meadows Mitigation Project
Mitigation
WATER & LAND
HUC8 Upper Yadkin 03040101
Davidson County, North Carolina
Concept Map
9
SOLUTIONS
Map Projection: NAD_1983_State Plan e_N orth_Carol in a_F I PS_3200_Feet
Date: 1/5/2022
Data sources - Soils data source: USDA. Imagery data source: NC One Map

Archaeological Survey �erracon
Rolling Meadows Davidson County, North Carolina
March 2022 Terracon Project No. 70227103
APPENDIX B: ARTIFACT PHOTOGRAPHS

III III 111; Iflk fly 71 ilfV•J'IIJI�
nII III,1IIII II11III_1'.1 Ti 11I1IIIIIII"11 11111IIIIIIIIIT
S _
(one flake not photographed)
SF-2
SF-3
SF-4
SF-5
Il11111V11f'`��Il`' ili ll�ll�� fliifllp'II';I!I
_ -
�„
�I'�I ��f1IIIIllllll;l'
SF-6
l
SF-7
h
mm(f
l�ll� �i �I�� III
III IIII IIII _I iII'i 11 il� ��i illl'I�IIII
SF-9
SF-11
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
� rerracon
Artifact Photographs
Rolling Meadows
NO.
Chkd:
MM
Project No:70227103
B'�
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
11 phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

3.x
�a
�IIIIII1�111111 1111T1111_17117J11,"IIIIIIIll I'll
i
Illll��lllll,llgrl u�IIII'III',I'i�lll.ld lll�
SF-12
SF-13
SF-19
SF-20
I111, JI] IIll I,IIIII_ _q[[Ii, I11111 allll I Iilf
SF-21
SF-22
j
IIJill 111111;11j11:1111111L 111-I
� II'r1111111�IIlfiT:1111i1��1111.1 lldll l I_I
SF-23
SF-24
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
�, %rracon
Artifact Photographs
Rolling Meadows
No.
chkd
MM
Project No:70227103
B'2
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

2 d 4
_
-
�j�ii,l,lili
I' llll' IIi ell ,I 'll!I11il'li;I'llllll;'''li'V
II'll III�� fll ill llqHlllllllll�lllll: I�
e
SF-25
SF-26
L a -,
.e
II Il��f�� I���'�i� Iffi flll��iflll'i II
II I Ilfll i� II I
SF-27
SF-28
1
rx
h.�fF
�III�IIIII' �Ill�lli.l�l�'<f �➢�I�� pll• 9�_�'��
:III II f dilPll III I II JI II II I� II II �II �ti
s�
SF-29
SF-30
>'.
•
,glll�lll�llll1���,��llilll'¶�f�;��rjiu�luglllqulul�',ill�
S F-31
S F-32
Drwn:
FIGURE
TR
�, %rracon
Artifact Photographs
Rolling Meadows
No.
chkd
MM
Project No:70227103
B'3
2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, NC 27606
Davidson County, North Carolina
Date.
March 2022
phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]